This article is intended to give the reader a fundamental understanding and basic guide to study the Conflicts of Law when asserting National Sovereignty through Private National Law, or using Domestic or Foreign Law to seek remedy when a Conflict of Law has occurred.


In this review we have listed many discussed terms and processes that are used to show the misapplication of law and firm line of separation of authority in the domestic/private/foreign rule of law, and fundamentals of each native constitution e.g. Canadian constitution vs Kanianke’haka “private Indian” constitution, our findings have shown that many paradoxes exist within the greater community at large when asserting diverse rule of law.

However, since the spirit of the ever present Indian nations have never been extinguished or rightfully replaced, the private Indian continue to survive and harvest the abundance of the collective spirit and nature, asserting the founding and fundamental principals and way of the one dish, and the two row wampum; “perpetual reservation of rights, balance of all things”.The Indian nations are presumed under Canada’s constitution and corporate umbrella that dominates the local and domestic systems of finance and governance thus encroaching the private Indian right and pirating the nature of the host Indian nations breaching the peace and guest-friend relationship, for example the use of the 1969 “Trudeau/Chrétien” White Papers to coercively extend the Canadian citizenship onto the private Indian nations without delegation of authority from the private nations.

In systematic efforts to silence and terminate the Indian born rights, Canada has developed specific courts, territorial injunctions, inclusive legislation and passages in the BNA act in effort to gain jurisdiction by mutual use of these exploitive elements built as a tool for conversion, though Indian nations have survived insurrections and treason, 1969 White Paper on Indians, 1924 raids of private council chambers, usurpation of the authentic councils of the Indian nations without delegation of authority or qualified representation.
Non-Delegation of Authority

It is this writers analysis that given the information referenced in this paper the Paramount question is:

Where is the real evidence, a lawful delegation of authority order granting the “company/agent” authority to make any legal or lawful determination on behalf of “the people of the ___”/non-company-members?

Was authority including lands assigned, granted, conveyed with proper records of this event, when a question is stated in the positive tense the private nation making the claim has the burden to prove that they did not grant such power or surrender interests in the lands or more importantly our blood relation, the Indian nations would have to discover evidence to bring proof of this claim.

However with the early record keeping practices and the years of theft of the many records from raids of the Indian council chambers and record custodians, this realization and above question must be brought to attention by bringing this statement as formed in the negative tense to assert the positive as rephrased below:

It is fact that we have no record or evidence that any lawful delegation of authority including the lands granting the “company” an order of authority to make specific legal or lawful determination on behalf of “the people of the ___”, and we believe no such evidence exists. If you have real evidence that the statement herein is in err, provide corrections for the record, otherwise the record stands as stated herein.

The power of this statement not only comes from the usurper having to admit and correct the record but to exclude and vacate the presumptions of good faith. he must prove that authority was either delegated lawfully or the private Indian nations constitutions and lands have been usurped without delegation of authority; an act of constitutional vandalism, treason, misrepresentation, continental and spiritual warfare, abduction, hidden enslavement and influence of the mind:

If proof of delegation of authority exits and the “company” produces a document they admit to agent status, showing that we can upgrade or downgrade the delegated mandate.

If they do not have proof of delegation of authority they have acted in conflict of law, and acting outside the scope of their offices, showing that the Indian nations have been wronged by; constitutional vandalism, treason, misrepresentation, continental and spiritual warfare, abduction, hidden enslavement and influence of the mind:.

Until the question of delegation of authority including land can be answered in favor of the “company” the content in this review should remain foreign and separate from the nature and fundamental constitution of the private Indian nations.

Fair trial and conflict of law

This term “fair trial” is one of the most unrealistic path to rule of law for the private Indian, when a Canadian citizen attends court he may pose the questions:

Is the Canadian citizen entitled to a fair trial, Answer: YES, secondly, can he have a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest, Answer: NO, for example; judge and attorney both represent the “company” there is conflict of interest, but then what is a conflict of law?

Jurisdiction of Canadian and provincial courts extends only to the Canadian or provincial citizen and lastly by the foreign national volunteering through his personal willful choice of law or if a nation-tonation mutual agreement to extradite exists, When an Indian is brought before the foreign court under the representation of a Canadian attorney the Indian is then presumed to have lawful constitutional representation under the Canadian rule of law granting the court proper jurisdiction, converting the original right to the private Indian constitution or private law, by choice or fraud.

Moreover, by willfully hiring an Canadian attorney it is assumed that the private Indian has forfeited his right to his fundamental constitution and inherency to his customary rights and private rule of law.
However this ultimately leads the next question can the private Indian [for example under the Kanianke’haka constitution] have a fair trial by a Canadian jury?

This question has been answered in the above paragraphs and should be evident by now to the reader that the court does not offer legitimate constitutional representation for the private Indian, and since the court is limited to the jurisdiction of the Canadian citizens, the private Indian does not have due process of trial by his peers, due to the fact that the requirements of jury duty; to be a citizen of Canada in good standing.

The source of conflict is the tyrannical application of the Canadian constitution onto the private Indian creating a constitutional paradox, it is also evident that the jury is also in conflict of law as foreign citizens or “non-peers”.

It is now clear that the courts can not offer legitimate or lawful forum to address indifferences of domestic and foreign law for the private Indian, this is when converting jurisdiction from private law to Canadian law becomes a critical collective governmental and corporate protection Maneuver to rescue Canadian society and the public and private investments through its conversionary process and judicial management of potential risk of harm from loss of reputation and investment perception from the influence of any and all perceptive or hidden rights including lands of the private Indian.

Example: Brantford Injunction 2011 Justice-Harrison Arrells’ stated that “I find it as a fact …For more than 150 years, the Six Nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands”, “the economy of this small city is at risk; the employment of members of the community are likewise at risk; the reputation of the city as a place to live, work and invest is at risk; all as a result of the city being unable to regulate development, provide a conflict-free environment for investment, employment and the raising of families, and the inability of the city to ensure to local a residents and the investment community that the rule of law prevails.”

By using Canadian courts, the objective will always be focused on minimization of the potential loss in control of national, corporate and domestic assets, the Canadian government holds the desire to prevent or delay a constitutional crisis, limiting the fallout and loss of control of every provincial, regional, municipal, and city stronghold, in what may be observed as its national duty to rescue.

In the above example the court converted the source of the risk through faulty opinion and misrepresentation of fact to reassure the public and malign public perception of the Indian right including the lands.

duty to rescue arises where a person [Canada] creates a hazardous situation [non-disclosure of prior interest of Indian rights including land]. If another person [third-party purchasers] then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator [Canada] of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual [third-party purchasers] in peril We can now address the fallacy of Justice Arrells statement, The city of Brantford, a non-crown corporation is also “third-party purchaser”, however in Brantford &Co’s. case they are also delegated representatives for the citizens of Brantford identified as the innocent third-party purchasers. Since Brantford is agent for the Citizens as principals, the obligation to inform the citizen is the duty of their agent, not the duty of the private Indian, Justice Arrell statement is in this writers opinion that was blatant example of conversion of risk and omission of Agent “Brantford” duty and liabilities, due to the fact that the statement redirects the source of risk from the Agents “Brantford” to the private Indian, thus Brantford created the risk by not informing the citizens of active and prior private Indian rights including the land.

In this context, conversion of constitutional or private rights happens when jurisdiction of the private Indian is granted to the court, either, when a private Indian hires a foreign lawyer or silenced, he may then be presumed to have Canadian constitutional representation and thus declared a Canadian citizen [aka killing the Indian and saving the man], the court then has jurisdiction.

However when the private Indian rebukes and corrects any bogus presumption he then remains private and “off the records” and conversion of law has not manifested.

Therefore it is contended that no Canadian domestic court has the jurisdiction to determine legitimacy of any cases brought before its bench concerning the private Indian, application of canadas constitution must be willfully chosen by the individual private Indian [evidentiary authorized by the private Indian], when application is forced, by coercion, misrepresentation or duress, this can only equate with tyranny “ultra vires” and repression of the Indian right to exist, also observed as constitutional vandalism, treason, misrepresentation, continental and spiritual warfare, abduction, hidden enslavement and influence of the mind.

Our right to exist—have you ever heard of such a thing? Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for its people recognition of its right to exist?, our very existence per se is our right to exist.

1791 Thomas Paine, Rights of Man: “The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each otherto produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

1882 Ernest Renan, “What is a nation?”: So long as this moral consciousness gives proof of its strength by the sacrifices which demand the abdication of the individual to the advantage of the community, it is legitimate and has the right to exist [French: le droit d’exister].

1922 Cemal Pasa: “In a word, the [Young Turks] want to make the Turkish race respected in the eyes of the world and secure its right to exist side by side with the other nations in the twentieth century.”

2009 Barack Obama: “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be
denied, neither can Palestine’s.

Tyranny, is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive.

Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched.
The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect
slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.
–Dresden James

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their
– C. S. Lewis

The psychology of tyranny

Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Both kinds of people will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their control over the outcome of events, but those with a fascist mindset tend to overestimate the amount of influence over outcomes that it is possible to attain.

This leads to behavior that often brings them to positions of leadership or authority, especially if most other persons in their society tend to underestimate the influence over outcomes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those who project confidence in what they can do and promise more than anyone can deliver

This process is aided by a common susceptibility which might be called the rooster syndrome, from the old saying, “They give credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun.” It arises from the tendency of people guided more by hope or fear than intelligence to overestimate the power of their leaders and attribute to them outcomes, either good or bad, to which the leaders contributed little if anything, and perhaps even acted to prevent or reduce. This comes from the inability of most persons to understand complex dynamic systems and their long-term behavior, which leads people to attribute effects to proximate preceding events instead of actual long-term causes.

The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of “father” to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent “children” of such persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized.

This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decision making of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.

In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an “authoritarian personality disorder”. In common parlance, as being a “control freak”.

The logic of tyranny

In Orwell’s classic fable, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the protagonist Winston Smith makes a key statement:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

Following the trial of the surviving Branch Davidians in San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1994, in which a misinstructed jury acquitted all the defendants of the main crimes with which they were charged, but convicted them of the enhancements of using firearms in the commission of a crime, the federal judge, Walter F. Smith, first dismissed the charges, correctly, on the grounds that it is logically impossible to be guilty of an enhancement if one is innocent of the crime.

However, under apparent political pressure, he subsequently reversed his own ruling and sentenced the defendants to maximum terms as though they had been convicted of the main crimes, offering the comment, “The law doesn’t have to be logical.”

No. The law does have to be logical. Otherwise it is not law. It is arbitrary rule by force.

Now by “logical” what is meant is two-valued logic, which is sometimes also called Boolean, Aristotelian or Euclidean logic. In other words, a system of propositions within which a statement and its negation cannot both be true or valid. One of the two must befalse or invalid. The two possible values are true and false, and every meaningful proposition can be assigned one or the other value.

A system of law is a body of prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive, propositions, that support the making of decisions, and therefore its logic must be two-valued. It is a fundamental principle of law that like cases must be decided alike, and this means according to propositions that exclude their contradictions. It is also a fundamental principle of logic that any system of propositions that accepts both a statement and its negation as valid, that is, which accepts a contradiction, accepts all contradictions, and provides no basis for deciding among them.

If decisions are made, they are not made on the basis of the propositions, but are arbitrary, and that is the definition of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law.

So what Winston Smith is saying is that freedom means being able to distinguish between a true proposition and a false one, and what his nemesis O’Brien therefore does to crush him is make him accept that “2 + 2 = 5″, which cannot be true if the logic is Aristotelian. O’Brien represents the logic of arbitrary power, a “logic” we might call Orwellian, although Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, was strongly opposed to it.

The methodology of tyranny

The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

Control of public information and opinion

It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it “public information” or “marketing”.

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers

It doesn’t matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries

Non-random selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers

This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force

The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of “protecting” the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement

Declaring a “war on crime” that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform

Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers

When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression

It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters’ competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances

This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law

This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are “following orders”.
Increasing dependency of the people on government

The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them

When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support

Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges

Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness

Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

Avoiding tyranny

The key is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them before they go too far or become too firmly established. The people must never acquiesce in any violation of the private Constitution. Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the society in ways from which recovery may take centuries.

Government cannot force a free will private Indian to be a corporate member, even though they use deception to entrap people into the status of “Canadian Status Indian”, “ Band Indian” the private Indian has a duty to defend against and disobey all forms of tyranny through right of self defence, the right of necessity and claim of right “with lawful excuse” to guard against any breach of the peace and abuse of the Indian-Canadian guest-friend relationship.
Disobeying a statute, In Canadian Law; solely observed by the private Indian; for intelligence only. Sec. 126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F). Disobeying order of court

Sec. 127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This then explains the use of Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada which says: “Defence with claim of right”

(1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary. Defence ‘without’ claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

This also suggests that there are no true ‘judicial’ courts for the ‘free will people’ of Canada not only the private Indian. All courts are “administrative” for “lawful slave administration and slave disciplining’ in the administrative courts of the corporate Crown, the administrative body of the City of London.

This means that the summons or arrest warrant and trial are by the claimed property rights of the Crown. And, the accused disobedient slave can be, and usually is stripped of all rights of due process by way of the doctrine of ‘homo sacer’ (non-person or out-law) out of the Roman Law system, or in the instance of the private Indian through conversion of his private rights.

Interestingly, the Criminal Code of Canada, a Roman civil law document pretaining only to the commercial corporation called the Crown in right of Canada or of a province, but reflecting much of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law relative to torts [wrongs against people or against their unalienable rights]. Unfortunately, tort law is used against free will individual men by a claim within the claimed to exist property right by the corporate Crown — the claim of a slave owner to administer and discipline its slave property.

The question has to be asked is “How much force is necessary to defend property or oneself from unlawful arrest or confiscation of possessions by police officers carrying loaded firearms and who are also trained in martial arts, and will frequently, and without hesitation, use both?” Further, Section 41(1) of the CCC states:
In Defense of a House

Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

But, even more important in these days of foreclosures on homes

42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.
Assault in case of lawful entry
(2) Where a person
(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
Note: But, with claim of right, it is justifiable.
Trespasser provoking assault
(3)Where a person
(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

Note: This takes careful reading, as the language is convoluted to confuse the unwary. If one has a claim of right, which would primarily be an ‘claim in equity’ — the one who has given it value, a ‘legal claimant’ has no right to enter or claim the property. They can be stopped by the force necessary, and if the legal claimant is accompanied by an armed officer, then lethal force can be used, as the officer will use the force of arms against you, or call for help to overcome you.

As is commonly the occurrence, police invade homes and real property without proper, or no warrants when there is no emergency reason mutual agreement to do so.

Remember these points of law when the police invade a home to seize guns, held peaceably, or such things as computers, and papers:

An arrest or search made with a:-
defective warrant;
or, issued without affidavit;
or, fails to allege a crime
or, is without jurisdiction
…is a criminal act by police, subject to the right of self defense.

Any officer of the government, such as a judge, a justice of the peace(JP), a clerk of the court, a Crown council, police, and other agents of the Crown, including Canada Customs and Revenue agents, who unlawfully deprive you of your Original right as Private Indians, are depriving you of your LIFE.

They claim that right of administration over you by the false and fraudulent claim upon you as a concocted legal fiction attached to your Created body — the name found on the copy of the birth certificate you may have in your possession where the family name has been converted into a primary name or surname. This is an evil game of play-acting as make-believe officers of a make-believe ship called a Roman style corporation — the Crown, upon which you are assumed to be a lowly crewmember.

Their game is totally make-believe — a fantasy; however, the results of their dispicable games are very real to you in the deprivation of your Original RIGHTS, especially your LIFE. Remember, LIFE is TIME. We have a limited amount of time to spend on this planet, and government thugs have no claim on any of it, be it any time out of your physical presence, or your time spent earning a living wage.

And so, where there is no available justice system, or where the justice system is actually perpetrating the crime against you, you have a right to use deadly force on the perpetrator, or upon those who have usurped authority to direct deadly force against you, and have a history of doing so, as is the case with judges, JP’s and CCRA agents acting unlawfully under the assumption that you are a “limited liability person” — a servant/subject of the Crown and not the Peaceful, Strong and Righteous Private Indian.

There is absolutely no excuse for a judge or JP being ignorant of the Magna Carta, especially Section 39, and, there are many recent acknowledgments by Canadian courts that the Magna Carta is a viable part of the Canadian Constitution (and, not in reference to the Trudeau Constitution Act 1982):

39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed–nor will we go upon or send upon him–save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

All judges and jp’s know that you as a private Indian are not subject to income tax or any administrative procedures arising out of the Canadian constitution where the complaint is relative to your not complying with the “the rule of law“. They have absolutely no excuse for such unlawful activity.

Consider a judge or jp who issues an arrest warrant against you for your failure to appear for a summons on an income tax issue. They have unlawfully sent armed men (police or sheriff) who will kill or severely injure you if you resist arrest. Therefore, they are just as guilty of taking your life as would be the policeman or sheriff who attempts to arrest you for such a falsely issued warrant.

Any CRA agent who comes to your door to serve notices and demands upon you KNOW that you are not subject to their administrative procedures. They use such visitations to “produce evidence” that you somehow give assent to being a “person” subject to the income tax act. This is fraud for the purposes of taking that part of your life that makes up the wages they wish to deprive you of as income tax. Do you have a right to take their life? You bet! They have the government justice system supporting their fraud and extortion game — and the intent to take your life.

Lord Blackstone says that the fifth auxiliary right is the use of arms where no justice system will defend your rights. The first four auxiliary rights are the forms of redress where some level of government will intercede for you. Canada is completely devoid of these first four relative to income tax and the activities of CRA

Simply, what this means that if a judge convicts you of income tax evasion, failure to file, or other charge out of the income tax act or other, he/she is taking your life. If the judge or JP does other than to ask you if you have made a contract with the Crown to be a corporate part of the Crown as a limited liability entity, unless such a written and signed contract between you and an agent of the Crown is part of the affidavit that issued with the summons or warrant, that judge or JP is committing high treason against you, the sovereign. And if your answer is “NO!”, the judge or JP has no other choice than to immediately quash the issue, and issue reprimand against the CRA agent(s) and Crown Council who caused the charge to be issued, thus recognizing the privacy of the Indian nations and national members.

The RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE, especially against tyranny perpetrated by those who represent officers of the government, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Common Law Principle called the “Rule of NECESSITY”. The ultimate “rule of Necessity” is the right to kill to protect your own life.

This fact could easily be mitigated by the Canadian Judiciary making a public declaration that they will uphold their oaths to the Queen, and to protect the RIGHTS of Canadian “Citizens”, including the right to not submit to the government extortion racket called the Income Tax and GST.

The RULE of NECESSITY, when we hear the expression ‘Rule of Necessity’, we usually think ‘Self Defense’, where an action, including deadly force, is the only available option to defend one’s, or another’s, physical body from impending harm by a beligerant assaulting party. But. it is also a claim to be dealt with in a hearing of jurisdiction by courts, before a court can proceed to try a party who has used an action for self defense, and was charged with a crime for doing so.

In such a case, the onus is on the Crown or State to prove that the party committed the act voluntarily, and not under duress, that other options of defense or actions were available, and that there was ‘mens rea’ — criminal intent by the accused party. Remember, evidence ‘suggests’, proof ‘shows’.

However, as a slave owned by the Crown or State, if you accept or acknowledge that you are ‘one and the same’ as the ‘legal identity’ — as the name shown on a birth certificate, you have no right of defense against the ‘officers’ of the slave owner, the Crown or State. The above American cases were decided when the State was concealing the fact that citizens were considered slaves, and now have States prosecuting those who defend themselves by using force against police committing unlawful actions against them.

It now seems that the veil of deceit has been removed by one’s observion of recent State’s (or Crown’s) orders to use whatever force is desirable or necessary to discipline or even exterminate disobedient slaves, as all ‘persons’ were declared ‘disobedient slaves’ in the early 1930s. All statutes, including Police Acts, deal only with ‘persons’ — people in the role of ‘slave’, and police in the role of slave discipline and the enforcement of slave owner’s rules. Police have no authority over ‘free will adult humans, except as ‘posse comitatus’ — men of the county, the same authority as any other moral adult human has obligations to defend people and property from malicious theft, threat or damage.

Clarification: The State or Crown takes the given and family name, registered by the parents of a newborn child, and converts the family name into a ‘surname’ [primary name], and converts the given names to ‘referential names’, this is opposite to reality, and is thus a fiction. However, upon doing that, the State or Crown claims the name under copyright as created intellectual property. When that child becomes an adult, the State or Crown assumes [by their use of false and fraudulent education to deceive people into believing that the ‘legal identity name’ is their name] that that human has enveloped him/herself in that name, the name as found on the birth certificate. However, there are vague clauses in statutes dealing with names, name changes and/or vital statistics which shows that is ‘offered’ as a contract, and thus need not be accepted by the adult human. To ‘offer’ in contract means that the ‘offerer’ owns that which is being offered. Of course, any contract is void if not ‘accepted’ knowingly and voluntarily.

The acceptance of that ‘legal identity’ name carries with it the status of ‘slave’ owned by the State or Crown. The State/Crown applies the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali — an accessory [the human free will adult you] attached to a principal [the legal identity name] becomes the property of the owner [State/Crown] of the principal.

Recent research shows that the actual acceptance of the Crown or State owned ‘legal identity’ name is voluntary, and thus, you don’t have to acknowledge or accept that name. But, we do have to use that name in commerce, banking, obtaining a passport, and dealing with government and other corporate bodies. And, the key term here is ‘have to’ — no choice, not a voluntary issue. The “have to’s” is that which our lives depend — food, shelter, clothing, economics, travel, and so forth. Therefore, the use of the legal identity in collecting our wages, banking, in government programs, driver’s license, etc. is not really a voluntary issue.

IF it is not used in a voluntary way, it is under ‘PRIVATE NECESSITY’, a version of the Rule of Necessity. Under that rule, no contract is implied or can be assumed by the Crown or State — unless we remain silent regarding our claim of Private Necessity.

What is suggested that any one that can see what is your remedy in a system of no such thing, you will have to decide what ship you want to be on, the colonial vessel or get building the raft and make your way home.

The RIGHT OF REBELLION, In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and theFrench Revolution.

Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory.

As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries.…” Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”

The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, allpeople have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens.

In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

Duty versus right

Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, “It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it.”

Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, “The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature’s God when they threw off absolute despotism.”

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” (emphasis added). Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.

Some theories of the right of revolution imposed significant preconditions on its exercise, limiting its invocation to the most dire circumstances. In the American Revolutionary context, one finds expressions of the right of revolution both as subject to precondition and as unrestrained by conditions. On the eve of the American Revolution, for example, Americans considered their plight to justify exercise of the right of revolution.

Alexander Hamilton justified American resistance as an expression of “the law of nature” redressing violations of “the first principles of civil society” and invasions of “the rights of a whole people.” For Thomas Jefferson the Declaration was the last-ditch effort of an oppressed people— the position many Americans saw themselves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colonial grievances was an effort to establish that Americans met their burden to exercise the natural law right of revolution.

Natural law or positive law

Descriptions of the Right of Revolution also differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or positive law (law enacted or adopted by proper authority for governing of the state).

An example of the dual nature of the right of revolution as both a natural law and as positive law is found in the American revolutionary context. Although the American Declaration of Independence invoked the natural law right of revolution, natural law was not the sole justification for American independence. English constitutional doctrine also supported the colonists’ actions. By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public oppression.” Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign.

This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time immemorial.” The Declaration’s long list of grievances demonstrated that this bargain had been breached.

This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force. This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this constitutional contract.

The law of redress had limits like the right of revolution under natural law. The law of redress, like the right of revolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the original constitutional contract. It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors of government. Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary,” for example if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws,” or abandoned the kingdom.

During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered resistance to the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless feet of tyranny.” A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to end his sovereign reign over the colonies because he violated the original constitutional contract.

As explained in legal historian Christian Fritz’s description of the role of the right of revolution in American Revolution, American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American constitutional thought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. “Both natural law and English constitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppression.” But these understandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution rested on a traditional model of government.

That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck in the mists of antiquity between a king and a people. “In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people giving the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breaching his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from their allegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution”—grounded on both natural law and English constitutional doctrine.”

Examples of the right of revolution as positive law

Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law include:

  • 1) The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known as rokosz.
  • 2) New Hampshire’s constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution’s Bill of Rights: Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
  • 3) The Kentucky constitution[30] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights:
  • All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
  • 4) Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania’s constitution,[31] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:
  • All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
  • 5) Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[32] states: That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
  • 6) North Carolina’s constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:[citation needed]
  • 3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.
  • 7) The Constitution of Texas[33] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:
  • All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
  • 8) The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed.
  • 5) The Greek Constitution, in Article 120, states that “[…] it is both the right and the duty of the people to resist by all possible means against anyone who attempts the violent abolition of the Constitution.”

Consolidated and Prepared as directed by “PEARL” …/…/evaluation-of-administrative-regulations-and-liabilities