The forum is in read only mode.
July 2017 ~ Archival of WFS Public Forums (18 Jul 2017)

Archival & restoration complete!
After two weeks of intense attention these forums are restored and my job is done, only two days late.
New moderators and admin will be introduced after this years General Assembly.

Members are encouraged to attend WFS General Meeting 2017.
Contact and Linking information available on wfs.me

Police acting like Hitler.

  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago - 2 years 1 month ago #115105 by terr-y
terr-y created the topic: Police acting like Hitler.
Its seems the action of one P.C. Mark Ashworth Continue to linger as his illegal/unlawful actions

Against the police code conduct to boot.

Has our community member behind bars for nothing more then planted evidence an a warrantless

search an seizure on private property once again.

This officer of the crown has committed fraud beyond the word it self...

This officers actions along with P.C. Jonathan Stinson / P.C. Siebert/Adam Ahee/Branton-- Have but taking this man's life

These Officers Have cost this man his family an have left him with a feeling of discuss.

A year an two days after These officers TRIED to do the same to our family .

These are the officers that should be off the streets an behind bars An to boot at Terry's trial we all but

had them arrested .

These members of the Durham Regional Police Services Were Discredited On the Stand Beyond

words .

Now Go ahead Punch In to your Browser DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE CHARGED

you will soon see How much of a Joke these folks really are!!!!

How can they claim anything of Creditable When There is So many of them charged with Shot Gun

Theft-Child Porn-Drug Dealing-Gang involvement ---Then Punch Where is Eddie loper Into your

Browser /The Scott loper story An you will all see !!! what these Folks are All about....

This Is the very Same Police Force That Tried to Take everything from Our Family An Friends With

illegal/Unlawful- Unwarrented actions ..

So Why are these Folks Still Walking Our Streets An Continuing to do this to other families with your

community as some of them have been Transferred to another area.

Are we as People Going to let our Public servant's Continue to act in these an other manners ????

So why is it that a man that we have known for a while who lost his mother at the age of ten!.

This lead to anger an one day in his teenage years got in an argument with someone an the anger flowed with little control resulting in a fist fight in which he gave it his all- All too much this landed him in a PENITENTIARY Where he was on more then one occasion Force to fight for his life...

They call this helping someone .They call it a correctional facility What did it correct.

Then lost his Brother Due to Suicide an found him that way.

A man so filled with Love An compassion is now locked up with nothing but hatred toward him.

His family gone.

Yet His Lawyer Does not see the Facts of these actions .

A man with such faith in his lawyer -yet he is behind bars when the real criminal's walk free!

A man that once said to one self "why Does Everything I Love Have to be taken from Me" As we

Buried His cat Beside His dog that the township Killed in Front of Him Cause they Claimed The Dog

Was A threat To Them when they were Entering his Private lands .

A man in his thirties that like five generations before him rode Harley Davidson Motor cycles For the

love Of the freedom in which it Stands For.

A man Who is going through changes in life as he becomes wiser to facts of deception...

A man who Can Not UNDERSTAND Nor Find In His Heart The Reasons Why People Swore n To

Protect The public Fail to do Just That.

His X girl Friend In which was Is a Cancer Survivor With The Scars To Prove It..Had Her Medicine

Taken In The Form Of 14 Pounds Of Shake In Which She Made Butter an ointments Out Of To Help

ease the pains In Her Pursuit Of Happiness.thus lawful excuse.

Now After Riding A Harley For as Many Years As He Has -You`d Be Correct In Thinking Some Are

Just Down Right Jealous An You`d Be Correct In Thinking this Man Has RIVAL`S..

This In Which Would Lead To Perhaps Where A Certain Object May Have Been Planted In His

Garage in which He does not Use As He Keeps His Bike In His House right beside His Bed.

Also Must mention He Was Not there When THESE officers Entered Only to Hold The Others in the

House Hostage For Six Hours.

Well tackling an detaining a Neighbor for no horn on a bicycle ! Put in hand cuffs an issued a non

consented to gift in form of a ticket with the wrong spelling of any such legal fiction an in

complete as areas of such ticket were left blank.On private property to boot with no warrant nor expressed written consent/authority to be there.

Yet the Courts still fraudulently proceeded to process such ticket without due process of the law.

yet another S52 an S32 infringement .

Must Also Mention His Teenage Children That Have Had Many Teen age Friends Come An Go..

Some Of These Teenager`s Convicted of Theft over.

This also Brings Out The Fact That There is More Then Two People On The Mortgage Title

Yet These Officers Charge Our Friend With Procession Of All .

He was Not In Procession Of Anything .

These Charges Are against S52 an have no force nor effect! ....An Our Friend Sits Waiting Behind Bars Losing Monies he Put out for His az license In Oder To Better Himself An Family.

Not to Mention Drive Commerce ...One Must -May wonder How Much Fait Monies are Created - made off Of Our Friends Trust. VS Him Drive Transport truck Driving Commerce Paying Taxes..

THis Man Does Not deserve To Have done What Has Been Done To Him .

It Is time They took Their feet Off His head An Let Him Cherish the remainder of his life an try to understand why his mom an brother - furry friends were taken from him...

Whats ur take folk's ...

Action in law / being drafted ....

To be served upon all involved.. :whistle:
Last Edit: 2 years 1 month ago by terr-y.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lone Ranger
  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago - 5 years 3 months ago #115114 by terr-y
terr-y replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.
It is time to release these FACTS.
There is more.
There is fraudulently edited transcripts.[which still contain enough to make one wonder an ask ?].
If you have never experienced any thing even remotely close to these FACTS.
If you have Never worried about what if they act upon your family.
Then don't comment I.
If you ain't been there you wouldn't Be able to grasp any of it....just go about your life as a sheep.

Information No.
Durham Region

TERRY Deleted- LEGAL Fiction

AFFIDAVIT OF Living Breathing Human Being.
All Rights Reserved
Common Law Jurisdiction Claimed.

I am Terry-: Of the deleted Clan. Of the Geographical area of Ontario Canada.

Regional Municipality of Durham –.
1 September – seventh – in the year two thousand and ten.
P.C. Mark Ashworth badge # 3266 Working as a Peace Officer/Policy Enforcement Officer.
2 P.C. Mark Ashworth badge # 3266 [public servant] entered private lands seeking conflict/contract/joinder/-walked over to a private automobile [not in commerce] owned by the private land owner an began a illegal /unlawful- search of said automobile without consent - nor with reasonable cause - nor with a notarized warrant for such time/ place / lands /automobile/persons/.

"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression household effects, Matter of Winburn's Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).
"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
"Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
"The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
"The classification of ``goods'' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact." Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).
"The definition of ``goods'' includes an automobile." Henson v Government Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).
Household goods
"The term ``household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed there with and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. Cites Mitchell's Will below.
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile Page 3 of 24

(2a)Entered private land’s without consent not working in proper capacity as when Officer was asked for his bond number claimed he had no idea as to what the question referred too.[ignorance is no excuse for the law]

Section 7.4 of the uniform bonding code "bonding of specific performance" states :

The Identification of a law enforcement officer declares the authority of the officer to act by :

number 3 , Stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the officer .

Number 4 stating the bond number of the officers bond.

an officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform and is acting as a regular citizen and is acting on his own personal liability.His personal property is then his true pledge under writing his authority.

So in essence he is not bondable if he cannot or will not provide this information to the public upon request.

"Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514.
"All household goods owned by the user there of and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2

Automobiles classified as vehicles
"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).
"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In re
Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.
"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.
"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile

Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)? No.
This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial). While the presumption of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use.

3 P.C. Mark Ashworth :Entered private land’s without consent not working in proper capacity as when Officer was asked for his bond number claimed he had no idea as to what the question referred too.[ignorance is no excuse for the law]
(a) A bonding company will not bond a defective statute because it does not want to pay the claim on the misuse of the statute.

(b) A bonding company shall not bond negligence.

(c) If a statute can easily be misused to get money or power, its misuse is virtually certain.

(d) Defective statutes invite the deliberate misuse of the statutes.

(E) Deliberate misuse (misapplication) of a statute is a criminal act.

(f) No statutes are bonded against deliberate misuse, i.e., criminal use

(g) An officer is acting without the protection of a municipal bond , is acting on the municipal corporate assests, or is acting “out of uniform” and on his own personal liability if he:

(1) behaves in a clearly anti-social manner,

(2) does not have an education in law adequate for his specific Performance as a law enforcement officer.

(3) is not adequately bonded for law enforcement,i:e. to enforce law

(4) does not have an adequate identification card or does not show his identification

card or does not show his identification card when necessary.

(5) act on an judication statue,and/or

(6) violates a citizen’s constitution rights or equal protection of the law.

(7) The identification card of a law enforcement officer declares the authority to the
Officer to act by:

(1) stating the specific performance of his job for which he is bonded , such as the class of states he is bonded to enforce,

(2) stating that he is licensed and bonded.

(3) stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the
officer ,and

(4) stating the bond (policy ) number of the officers bond(insurance)

An officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform an acting as an ordinary citizen on his own personal liability .his personal property is then the true pledge underwriting his authority.

Liability by association:

An officer can be sued for injury caused by acts) of another officer, if the acts)was committed and injury was caused while the two officers worked together. The assessment of transfer of liability rest upon such concepts as reasonable diligence, accident, neglect, and conspiracy.

S.52 of the Consititution covers this:

Criminal acts include acts committed in violation of a citizen's constitutional rights and in violation of guarantees of equal protection of the law (civil rights).

(5) When P.C. Ashworth was demanded to stop. Stated he had every right to continue [in which he did not].
As he was told and demanded to stop as he was trespassing on the alleged accused estate- without expressed written consent to adjudicate/probate/administer-the estate or affair’s.

(6) Code of conduct section 2.11 States there is no power to stop or detain a ”person”
[using the word “person lighty as a “person” is a corporate entity /legal fiction.]
In order to find grounds for a search.

(7) P.C. Mark Ashworth is a stranger to the alleged accused an the alleged accused
Had/has every right not too interact with such peace officer acting as a policy enforcement officer. Who could not supply his bond information. Acting out of uniform. In fact alleged accused mother taught him too stay away from stranger’s/and/or run from such dangers.

(8) P.C. Mark Ashworth then states he is calling back up.

(9) In which he was told by alleged accused too call a superior officer.

(10) This is when P.C. Adam Ahee Show’s Up on scene- private land – Claiming to be a
superior officer [he may have more time in then Mark as a peace officer how ever it was evident that he was not an superior officer]
It was clear too the Alleged accused that P.C. Mark Ashworth as well as P.C. Adam Ahee were Abusing their authority. Threatening the well being of the alleged accused/ an children with harm.

(11) P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 Then see’s the alleged accused / children out back in a huge sand pile enjoying there “GOD” “GIVEN” right to enjoy their day in their pursuit of happiness on their own private land On this planet .,

(12) P.C. Mark Ashworth # 3266 then threaten’s to call the Children aids society in which he has no authority to do what so ever .They are not the government’s children .He is trespassing without consent to contract for his services, nor is there a joinder created as no government issued identification was ask for/demand ,nor supplied ,or volunteered /nor shown, nor surrendered ,

(13) Again abusing his authority-Authority P.C . Mark Ashworth does not have without “CONSENT”,

(14) International convent on civil an political rights: articles 1-54.lawful excuse/claim of right. Common law, equity , merchant act law, and law and equity Still apply to the personal property security act. Further translation
A transaction of a security interest” REQUIRES YOUR CONSENT” to be facilicated and perfected .Any transaction of a security interest is “VOID” by way of “DURESS”, coercion, mistake, misrepresentation fraud, etc. If you do not want to “CONTRACT” with the Corporation (s) of the CROWN ,HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH11 , Or the law society of Ontario .You have the “RIGHT “ to say “NO” I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS SECURITY TRANSACTION OF A SECURITY INTEREST AND IT IS VOID.

Proof the crown is bound by this act “principles of law and equity apply.
The Priniciples and equity supplement this act an continue too apply, including:
(a)the law merchant,
(b)the law relating to the capacity to “CONTRACT”, principal and agent estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion and mistake, and other validating or invalidating rules of law.

(a) Abuse of authority
For the purposes of section 4 (1) (f), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of abuse of authority if the police officer
(a) without good and sufficient cause arrests, detains or searches a person,
(b) uses unnecessary force on a person,
(c) while on duty, is discourteous or uncivil or uses profane, abusive or insulting language to a person including, without limitation, language that tends to demean or show disrespect to a person on the basis of that person's race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or economic and social status, or,
(d) harasses, intimidates or retaliates against a person who makes a report about the conduct of an officer or submits a complaint under Part 9 of the Act.
Compliant was file by alleged accused against P.C. Mark Ashworth Badge # 3266 / Sgt Wohlert Badge # 930 /P.C.Adam Ahee badge # 3295 As well as against Durham Regional Police Services .Complaint number 100001806 .

(15) Above is mentioned as both P.C. Mark Ashworth /P.C. Adam Ahee Stated that the Alleged accused had no right’s.. That he must be high on drugs [ alleged accused was asked if he did heroin or was on heroin] or drunk .[ One might ask where such injurious/demeaning- statements came from]

(16) P.C. Adam Ahee badge # 3295. then ask’s if The alleged accused is all there mentally in the head…[ while on duty, is discourteous or uncivil or uses profane, abusive or insulting language to a person including, without limitation, language that tends to demean or show disrespect to a person on the basis of that person's race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or economic and social status.]

(17) P.C. Mark Ashworth /P.C . Adam Ahee both took part in this demeaning /personal attack against the alleged accused .Questioning ones character/knowledge while trespassing on private lands bringing conflict to the alleged accused door step.

(18) All the while seeking contract or joinder with no regard for conflict being acted out by a peace officer [public servant].Who has not witnessed a breach of peace.

(19) Thus Breaching trust as per his/her oath-Charter of rights and freedoms section
(s1.) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
[ It is not free and just if one can not leave, cannot be forced against their will to belong to any society “GOD” did not create nor recognize. Nor can it be free /just/fair/democratic- when peace officers/policy enforcement officers can enter private land held under lawful excuse/claim of right disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of said land in the pursuit of happiness seeking conflict/contract/joinder.]

(s2)Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

(s6)Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application[which means to beg in blacks law and no one is obliged to beg] in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons {Legal Entity} primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
[this also brings the administration of the justice system into disrepute as it inter - fears with the Great Magna Carta]
© “The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere “PRIVILEGE” which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness”-Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
.”the charter doesn’t override previous rights”.

This is being “CLAIMED AS CHARTER INFRINDGEMENTS by the alleged accused .Durham Regional Police Services did act without Consent in they were put on notice. Durham Regional Police services does not have expressed written ‘consent”. [alleged accused has a right not to consent to contract their services]
Has uploaded information that put alleged accused an family at risk as Home land security - Stop’s an detain’s /question’s .Home land Agrees that there is something wrong that there is conflicting information uploaded .Which makes no sence too Homeland security .After interviewing the alleged accused while /family an alleged accused were traveling and -arbitrary detained.
.[Homeland security- have asked for the alleged accused court record’s in order to investigate such entering’s of conflict to the national data bank.]

(s7) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
[Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual’s autonomy and personal legal rights from action of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice. This Charter provision provides both substantive and procedural rights.[1] It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance[2] and public health care[3]. As such, it has proven to be a controversial provision in the Charter. Thirdly, there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the “psychological integrity” of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000). This right has generated significant case law, as abortion in Canada was legalized in R. v. Morgentaler (1988) after the Supreme Court found the Therapeutic Abortion Committees breached women’s security of person by threatening their health. Some judges also felt control of the body was a right within security of the person, breached by the abortion law. In Operation Dismantle v. The Queen (1985) cruise missile testing was unsuccessfully challenged as violating security of the person by risking nuclear war. In Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attourney General) (2005), some Supreme Court justices even considered Quebec’s ban on private health care to breach security of the person, since delays in medical treatment could have physical and stressful consequences. Some people feel economic rights ought to be read into security of the person, as well as section 15 equality rights to make the Charter similar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a liveable environment.[10] There has also been discussion within the Supreme Court and among academics as to whether security of the person guarantees some economic rights. Theoretically, security of the person would be breached if the government limits a person’s ability to make an income, by denying welfare, taking away property essential to one’s profession, of denying licences.
(s8) Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
(s9) Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

(s10) Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons there for;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without DELAY and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
[counsel was demand and asked for more then once by the alleged accused counsel was not supplied on Oct –fifth-in the year two thousand an ten. Details which will be included in this document].
(s11) 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable DELAY of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a REASONABLE time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
(s12) Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

(s24.2) Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

(26) The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
[This enforces /supports those rights of the Great Magna Carta]

(19).Universal Declaration of Human Rights ,Where as recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal an inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of “FREEDOM”, ”JUSTICE”, And Peace in the world.
Section :
(1) Claimed by the alleged accused :All human beings are born “FREE” and “EQUAL” in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

(2) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind ,such as race. Color ,sex, language, religion, political ,or other opinion ,national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore ,no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, ”JURISDICTIONAL” or international status of the country[de fact-0] which a “Person” belongs, whether it be independent trust, non –self-governing or under any other limitation of “SOVEREIGHTY”.

(3) Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.
(4) no one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be “PROHIBITED” in all their forms.
(5) No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(7)All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

(12) NO one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family ,home or correspondence , nor to attacks upon his honour an reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(17) (1) everyone has the right to own property alone ,as well as in association with others
(2) No shall be arbitrarily deprived of his/her property.[in which the alleged accused was on more then one occasion.]

(18) everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others ,in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching ,practice ,worship an observance.

(19) Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek ,receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

(20) P.c. Mark Ashworth # 3266 did not lawfully /legally pull/motion over any such automobile.

(21) As said automobile was parked for sometime before officer entered private lands.

(22) “law” does not excuse misconduct in anyone :least of all a sworn officer of “law”

(23) During this time P.C. Anvil Maharaj Shows up and was appointed under criminal code #39 after stating that he did not want any part of what his fellow men were doing.

(24) During this time the alleged accused became concerned by the unlawful action’s of P.C. Ashworth #3266 as well as P.C Ahee # 3295.

(25) The alleged accused then had the children go into their home .

(26) The alleged accused at this time put a call into the head quarter’s at 77 centre street in Oshawa.

(27) Disclosure For this day and time has been requested for and Denied several times.

3: 10 Before the search takes place the officer
must inform the person (or the owner or person
in charge of the vehicle that is to be searched) of
his or her entitlement to a copy of the record of
the search, including his entitlement to a record of
the search if an application is made within 12
months, if it is wholly impracticable to make a
record at the time. If a record is not made at the
time the person should also be told how a copy
can be obtained (see section 4).The person should
also be given information about police powers to
stop and search and the individual’s rights in these
4.2 A copy of a record made at the time must be
given immediately to the person who has been
searched.The officer must ask for the name,
address and date of birth of the person searched,
but there is no obligation on a person to provide
these details and no power of detention if the
person is unwilling to do so. Alleged Accused clearly told All peace officers present that alleged accused did not consent to contract their services.
(28) The alleged accused reserves the right to subpoena Anvil Maharaj as a witness.

(29) On September Seven in the year two thousand an ten. P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 was told that a compliant would be claimed/filed for his misconduct.

(30) Refer to long copy[letter compliant] for more info of disclosure of truth attached to this affidavit.

(31) This hinders the alleged accused right to a fair an just trial.
Crown counsel are required, on an ongoing basis, to assess every case according to the reasonable prospect of conviction/public interest test set out in the Decision to Prosecute15. Charge review in the mega-trial context requires strict attention to the difficult choices that must be made, and Crown counsel must objectively review the case to determine what the public interest requires, as the Decision to Prosecute policy demands.
First, to the extent possible, charge review should be done before charges are laid. This assumes that there has been co-operation with the investigative agency, particularly with respect to the preparation of a package for Crown counsel that gives a comprehensive overview of the investigation and a detailed summary of the evidence against each individual. Meaningful charge review cannot take place without receiving such information, and “prosecutions cannot proceed” where a high standard of “ disclosure is not met.”
Justice of the peace :Forestall Refused to sign/commission three supoena’s tearing them up in front of Alleged accused. One for Derik Wohlert # 930 who is with holding disclosure/evidence .Mr Wohlert was the last officer on Oct 5/2010 to have custody of alleged accused .Alleged accused has a right to question him at trial and cross exam him. Which a motion will be filed Alleged accused has every right to supeona Mr Wohlert as a witness. Alleged accused has every right under criminal code 337 to demand the audio/ video /dvd’s from the interview room with Mr wohlert badge #930 as well as the release dvd from the lobby of the 15 div of Port Perry police services on oct 5-6/ 2010,

LEGAL COUNSEL WAS DENIED. Alleged - Accused was not allowed to make the call themselves.


(1) When the alleged accused traveled as a guest in an automobile not in commerce to the Durham Regional police service at Port Perry located at 15765 Trans-Canada hwy #12 .
(2) Pick up a complaint form to follow through with the complaint process Against the unlawful actions .P.C. Mark Ashworh # 3266 .P.C. Adam Ahee and Durham Regional Police Services.

(3) once at the station Alleged accused was stalled ,by being told by counter help that they were not sure were the complaint forms were kept.

(4) While this was being spoken Alleged accused noticed P.c. Mark Ashworth to the right of the counter behind the counter.

(5) Upon Leaving /pulling out in front of approaching heavy traffic head in a north bound direction to head back up Trans Canada hwy #12 with plans to stop in the hamlet of green bank to visit a friend.

(6) While approaching the hamlet of green bank ,the alleged accused turned to check on his daughter who was belted in the rear seat.

(7) As the accused turned he noticed a police cruiser passing in heavy traffic on the wrong side of the road ,forcing on coming traffic on to the narrow an soft shoulder.

(8) As the police cruiser approached an entered back into the correct lane coming in behind the automobile , the alleged accused was traveling in ( as a guest not in commerce ) ,

(9) The alleged accused then directed the driver to pull as safely as possible off to the east shoulder .

(10) As the police cruiser came to a stop P.C. Mark Ashworth came running up ,as this was taking place two more police cars at high rates of speed came upon the scene also putting the public safety at risk.

(11) P.C. Mark Ashworth then begins to write unwarranted /un consented to gifts in the form of traffic ticket’s in order too intimidate/deter the alleged accused right to lay a complaint against him.. At this point in time the alleged accused felt that P.C. mark Ashworth #3266 had taken on a Personal ban-deta .

(12) Using intimidation tactics while having no regard for public safety ,further violating Charter and freedom’s -for his own personal gain- breaching- the security of the person by causing further undue “STRESS” as there was no crime being committed. No breach of the Peace had occurred until P.C . Ashworth Took it upon himself to Breach the peace by causing a scene ,where there would of other wise not been one.

(13) From one of the other police cruiser’s came P.C. Shaw. Who is a witness to these unlawful act’s “law clearly states (J.P.Forestall refused to commission the supeona For Mr Shaw Tearing it in half while in front of the alleged accused this obstructing due process of the law) NO INJURED PARTY –NO CRIME”.

(14) As Well A Safety Inspection was conducted on the side of the road bringing commerce to a crawl as highway tractor trailer etc. crawled by at very slow rates of speed almost causing a traffic jam.

(15) As the inspection officer was conducting his inspection P.C. Mark Ashworth followed around the inspector making statements “WHAT CAN I GET HIM FOR”. As the inspector states what ever you like however I am done here. Giving the automobile a green light. The inspector then left the scene. Finding no defects.,

(16) While on the side of the road for a good hour Having the common law right to travel unhindered violated.(As per the Great Magna Carta)

(17) All traffic ticket’s the alleged accused received that day were dismissed in an appeal’s court.By justice of the peace: Mike Vock.

(17a) P.C. Mark Ashworth was offered a CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER , Send registered mail to his place of work., Which he chose to ignore and did not legally or lawfully rebut.

(18) The alleged accused being hamper’d in their responsibility being late to pick up their other child from school due to P.C. Mark Ashworth’s action’s a phone call was made to a friend who then went to the school to pick up the child.


(1) Where as the alleged accused was working in/on their private lands fairly early in the morning ,When a stray from the neighbour hood show’s up offering too lend a hand . As the day progressed the stray also know As Brandon Welsh offer’d to go get a chain saw to cut wood .He left while the alleged accused continued with tasks at hand.

(2) Sometime later Brandon Welsh reappears with a chain saw ,using it briefly then puts the saw down an leaves again.

(3) Sometime passes again Brandon show’s up .Standing around talking ,A friend show’s up Jason Wilson Who knows Brandon better then the alleged accused.

(4) They share a six pack of beer, Brandon drinking four an Jason drinking two.

(5) About two hours later Jason leaves to go pick up his kids from school.,

(6) Brandon hangs around an his demeaner begins to change .,

(7) There has been issues with Brandon through out the town’s history of violence when Brandon drink’s .Some have been at the alleged accused land prior.,

(8) At around 3:30 pm. Two more of the alleged accused Good friend’s show up..At this point Brandon begins to ask very odd question’s in relation as too the type of employment the alleged accused friend do for a living.,

(9) Some of those question’s appeared out of character for Brandon as he went on too ask if the two were patched hells angel member’s..,

(10) This up set the two friends who both answered “no” “what are you crazy” with this being said, the two friend’s hung around a little while longer asking the alleged accused why Brandon would ask such question’s and too address the progress on a gm automobile that was being worked on by the alleged accused.

(11) After these odd question’s and discussion’s over the automobile were done ,The two friends decided it was time to go.

(12) This is when Brandon ask’s the two friends for a ride that would require them to go out of their way.

(13) Brandon had asked to be given a ride out too a farm on the –trans-Canada hwy#12 about 3km.

(14) The friends answer “no”

(15) It is now getting later in the day around 5-6 pm on October 5/2010.

(16) The alleged accused was awaiting the arrival of their wife .At which time Brandon showing sign’s of anger asked the alleged accused to drive him out to the farm on the highway.

(17) Not wanting to be rude as Brandon did help out earlier in the day.

(18) The alleged accused agreed to give Brandon a ride out to the farm. Once there Brandon spoke with his friend. While the alleged accused talked with the friends wife about our children as they go to school together.

(19) This is when an argument start’s between the farm occupant an Brandon.

(20) The farm occupant ask’s the alleged accused to Take Brandon out of there .

(21) Seeing as the alleged accused was the one who brought him there ,it was agreed they would leave together as well.

(22) As they were leaving the alleged accused / Brandon encountered too other people coming too the farm This individual was Shawn link the other party was still in their car an could not be seen.

(23) At this time the alleged accused began travel back to their home.

(24) While on the way traveled south on #12 east on Cameron .

(25) This is when the alleged accused notices a tan ford edge traveling east bound in front of them .

(26) This ford edge was wondering all over the road way been driven a radically. Then slowing an acting as if the driver had been drinking.

(27) The alleged accused not wanting to put their self in harm’s way slowed as well in order to remain safely behind this automobile .

(28) As this automobile approached the front of Brock high school it near came to a stop however continues to drive very slow still wondering.

(29) As the alleged accused nears their private laneway the ford edge stops right at the top of the laneway as the the alleged accused automobile crosses over the road way to safely avoid other automobile an enter their laneway.

(30) Well the alleged accused is parked an stepping out of their auto This ford edge does a wild u turn an enters the top of the laneway.

(31) A small man jump’s out yelling don’t move or I’ll ground you, with what appears to be gun in hand.

(32) The alleged accused becomes freaked out and walk’s toward this man only to discover in the darkness blinded by the high beams on their automobile that it is P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 Not In Uniform ,nor operating a Known or Marked police cruiser .

(33) Upon approaching P.C. Mark Ashworth he begins to struggle with his vest as he is try’n to put it on it gets stuck on his right shoulder with his left hand fully extended to the sky.

(34) As the vest drops after doing a small dance ,The alleged accused is right beside P.C. Ashworth #3266 he begins to shout Police I told you not to move or I’ll ground YOU.

(35) The alleged accused being on private property having rights to those private lands an P.C. Ashworth not lawfully /or legally motioning or pulling over the automobile in question as he was always in front of said the alleged accused automobile.

(36) This Is when the alleged accused ask’s P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 what this unlawful/illegal action is all about.

(37) This is when P.C. Mark Ashworth answer you are under arrest for procession of narcotics.

(38) The alleged accused then states really Mark you’ve got to be kidding me.

(39) Mark states that he is not an is quite serious.

(40) The alleged accused states really mark?? where is your burden of proof ??And who is the injured party???

(41) P.C. Mark Ashworth then states Loudly “Don’t you worry I’ll find it”

(42) The alleged accused then Ask’s really where are going to find burden of proof when none excist??? Or find an injured party? as you can not claim to be the injured party as that would be conflict of interest.

(43) Brandon Welsh is still in the alleged accused automobile .

(44) P.C Ashworth then call’s for back up as The alleged accused is hand cuffed and unlawfuly detained on their private land.

(45) More officers not in marked police automobiles show up .

(46) P.C. Mark Ashworth has P.C. Lessor hold and detain the alleged accused while Brandon Welsh is removed from the auto an searched .

(47) While this is going on P.C. Adam Ahee #3295 illegaly/unlawfuly without warrant or consent of automobile owner searches the alleged accused automobile on private land held under lawful excuse /claim of right.

(48) Finding nothing in the search P.C. Mark Ashworth comes back to the alleged accused an states I here by rescind that charge and now charge you with impaired operation of a motor vehicle .I smell alcohol looks at P.C. lessor An ask’s you smell it P.c. lessor answer’s not sure ,but I smell something???

(49) The alleged accused says you got to be kidding me .P.C Ashworth replies “no” I am not.

(50) The alleged accused then states that they “do not consent” and everything done from here on in will be under protest an duress. Accused stated that they are being abducted at gunpoint under full color of the law an it is fraud.

(51) This is when the alleged accused ask’s to speak to their wife in order to make responsible arrangement’s for their children in order to get them to school in the morning as the wife works an travel’s far.

(52) The alleged accused is denied such right by P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 .

(53) The alleged accused then states that they are going to start yelling for their wife an it will not constitute a breach of the peace as a lawful /legal right has been denied.

(54) At this time the alleged accused is being searched under protest and duress while yelling for his wife on their private lands as P.C. Mark Ashworth continues with his kidnapping/abduction of the alleged accused off their land.

(55) Alleged accused wife comes out of home and burst’s in to tears further breaching the families security of the person creating yet another charter violation.

(56) While wife is walking toward the alleged accused P.C. Mark Ashworth is reading the alleged accused their rights ,which alleged accused states he does not understand[which means to stand under in black’s law the alleged accused can not possibly understand an unlawful abduction nor the action’s taken by P.C . Ashworth # 3266]

(57) P.C. Ashworth resight’s an ask’s what part do you not “understand”?? the alleged accused answer’s none of it - can not “stand under”a public servant you work for the alleged accused and are abusing your trust as trustee.,

(58) P.C . Ashworth #3266 has a brief discussion with the alleged accused wife(cautioned her on Brandon Welsh) as the alleged accused is loaded into a marked police cruiser that has arrived on scene to carry out transport/abduction/kidnapping.

(59) Once at the Port Perry station in the sally port the alleged accused took notice an voiced the fact that there garbage bags full of drugs laying about the sally port and had not been logged in to evidence.

(60) As the alleged accused was taken into the station through the sally port ,The alleged accused noticed a very strong smell of drugs.

(61) The alleged accused ask’s wither the drugs are chemically grown as the alleged accused has respiratory problem’s(asma/Isocyanates poisoning)an was worried about their health. Doctor notes as proof of claim.,

(62) P.C. Siebert an another officer ? laughed an stated that no they weren’t (in which the alleged accused later found evidence that they were in possession of chemically grown drugs)

(63) The alleged accused develop’s a migraine headache as they are arbitrary detained in a small room with a ceiling fan bussing away drawing the stench of drugs into the holding room.

(64) P.C. Mark Ashworth comes to see the alleged accused approx 30 min/hour after he states he is turning custody over to P.C. Siebert (the breath Tech).

(65) Alleged accused is then taken too breath tech room –asked to blow in the breathlizer.

(66) Alleged accused states that they do “ NOT CONSENT” that they have been “abducted/kidnapped- under full color of the law” which constitutes fraud.

Criminal code of Canada section 15. OBEDIENCE TO DE FACTO LAW.
(67) 15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs. [R.S., c.C-34, s.15.]

If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. Samuel Adams.

(69)P.c. Siebert Turn’s custody back over too P.C. Ashworth #3266 >Alleged accused is taken back to the holding room.
(70) P.C. Ashworth then threaten’s the alleged accused with a bail hearing if he does not provide a breath sample. The alleged accused states that is great that they like to travel then asks >P.C. Mark Ashworth what time is the bail hearing at ??

(71) The alleged accused wanted habeas corpus ,however was later denied that option as P.C. Mark Ashworth never followed through with his intent/threat. The alleged accused believes that it was done in order to intimidate/coercion .

‘(72) Some time later P.C Ashworth comes back to the holding room and ask’s the alleged accused for their phone number.

(73) alleged accused states that they do not consent for P.c.Ashworth to have their phone number as they pay to have it unlisted.

(74) P.C. Ashworth ask’s again stating he will have to send an officer back to the alleged accused home an once again breach the security to the person.

(75) P.C. Ashworth is told by the alleged accused that he is a stranger an we do not consent to contract for his services and is told point blank to stay away from the alleged accused family. Alleged accused has power of attorney,

(76) The alleged accused states that they are not a” CHILD OF THE PROVINCE” and are fully Capable as an adult to find their own way home ,As fully capable of administering their own affairs,

(77) P.C. Mark ashworth then leaves the holding room,

(78) Some time later during the arbitrary detainment P.C. Mark Ashworth comes back to the holding room an states that he is turning over custody to his Staff inspector ,

.(79) Alleged accused thinks great possible remedy a chance to discuss the unlawful action’s of P.c. mark Ashworth, in front of a Judge,

(80) Alleged accused is then removed from holding room /custody is turned over to P.C. Derik Wolhert # 930.
(81) Derik Wolhert # 930 Is an officer who assaulted the alleged accused unlawfully/illegally on a previous occasion in which the alleged accused had to under go surgery for a hernia from the officer kicking the alleged accused in the groin,
269. Every one who unlawfully causes bodily harm to any person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 269;
• 1994, c. 44, s. 18.

(82) Alleged accused was taken to an interview room an questioned as well told he was being released an their wife was out front,

(83) Alleged accused states You were told you did not have CONSENT to go an bother this family ,P.C. Mark Ashworth Also stated that alleged accused was going to be taken for a bail hearing, What happened to habeas corpus/remedy,?
(84) Alleged accused is told they are being released on a PTA which is then asked to sign,
(85) Alleged accused states that this is conflict of interest as you SGT. Wolhert caused injury to the alleged accused in which required surgery ,

(86) SGT. Derik Wolhert #930 Then states we not going to go there are we???
(87) Alleged accused states yes we are ,SGT. Wolhert #930 puts his head down laughing into his arms to the left to avoid being captured on camara which is in the room ,alleged accused states it has to be put on record.
(88) SGT. Wolhert Then leaves the room ,when he comes back he has some paperwork,
(89) Alleged accused is told he must sign a P.T.A. (must means may in black’s law an does not mean one is obliged)
(90) Alleged accused states they do not consent they have been abducted under full color of the law an it is fraud.,
(91) Alleged accused is then told If they do not sign it .SGT. Derik Wolhert will write refused on the his copy.,

(92) Alleged accused states they are not refusing that they have denied their consent.,

(92 a) Alleged accused was also denied right to counsel,

(93) Sgt Wolhert begins to write the word refused When alleged accused in seeking remedy say’s tell you what SGT. Wolhert if you write the word orginal across the top of the P.T.A. an sign it ,alleged accused will also sign .That will create a legal/lawful “CONTRACT” an alleged accused will see you in court. Which is cover in the bills of exchanged act., alleged accused stated that there was more then One lawful excuse to ignore any an all fraud-lent security transactions, done with out consent.
SGT Wolhert #930 Refuses TO write orginal across or sign the legal document states he is not doing that..He is asked why Derik cause there is many more copies an that is not the orginal as stated in the criminal code 337 which clearly states: Public servant refusing to deliver property
337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
(94) R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.

(96) P.C. Ashworth then reappears as if he was watching the conversation on video? P.C. Mark Ashworth states Alleged accused is being released and will be escorted out to the lobby to meet their wife.

(97) SGT Derik Wolhert accompanies alleged accused /P.C. Ashworth to the lobby of 15765 Located on–Trans_Canada Hwy #12.,

(98) Once in the lobby alleged accused is offerd paper work in which they do not consent to accept as they do not recognize the name on the paperwork as it belongs to a legal fiction/corporate entity., Alleged accused is a living breathing human being with a soul.

(99) Alleged accused turn’s too SGT Derik Wolhert an states that alleged accused will be back for the dvd’s recording’s that he should make sure they are well cared for an unedited. (which are being with held.. These recordings are part of full disclosure an due process of the law is being obstructed) Charter violation.,

(100) Alleged accused has a right to full disclosure: under criminal 337

Public servant refusing to deliver property
337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.
(101) Sgt Wolhert - Has refused to turn over those recordings as part of “required Disclosure”
Criminal breach of trust
336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
• R.S., c. C-34, s. 296.

(102) P.C.Ashworth #3266/SGT Derik Wolhert #930-
269.1 (1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
• “official”
« fonctionnaire »
“official” means
(a) a peace officer,
(b) a public officer,
(c) a member of the Canadian Forces, or
(d) any person who may exercise powers, pursuant to a law in force in a foreign state, that would, in Canada, be exercised by a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c),
whether the person exercises powers in Canada or outside Canada;
• “torture”
« torture »
“torture” means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
(a) for a purpose including
(i) obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a statement,
(ii) punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, and
(iii) intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or
(b) for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
No defence
(3) It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency.
(4) In any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction,(jurisdiction can only be assumed upon “CONSENT”)any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an offence under this section is inadmissible in evidence, except as evidence that the statement was so obtained.
• R.S., 1985, c. 10 (3rd Supp.), s. 2.
Fabricating evidence
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
• R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Improper disclosure of information
8 For the purposes of section 4 (1) (d), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of improper disclosure of information if the police officer
(a) except as required in the performance of his or her duties, as authorized by his or her supervisor or as required by due process of law,
(i) discloses information that is acquired by the police officer in the course of being a police officer, or
(ii) removes or copies a record of any municipal police department or a police force, or
(b) makes, signs or circulates a petition or statement, in respect of a matter concerning any municipal police department or a police force,
(i) knowing that all or any part of the petition or statement is false, or
(ii) having reckless disregard as to the truth of the petition or statement.

For the purposes of section 4 (1) (c), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of deceit if
(a) the police officer makes or signs a false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any official document or record, or
(b) the police officer, with intent to deceive, falsify or mislead,
(i) destroys, mutilates or conceals all or any part of an official document or record, or
(ii) alters, erases or adds to any entry in an official document or record.
Discreditable conduct
5 For the purposes of section 4 (1) (a), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct if
(a) the police officer, while on duty, acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner that is
(i) prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed, or
(ii) likely to discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed,
(b) the police officer's conduct, while on duty, is oppressive or abusive to any person,
(c) the police officer contravenes a provision of the Act, a regulation, rule or guideline made under the Act, or does not comply with a standing order of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed,
(d) the police officer withholds or suppresses a complaint or report against any other officer,
(e) the police officer fails to report to an officer whose duty it is to receive the report, or to Crown counsel, any information or evidence, either for or against any prisoner or defendant, that is material to an alleged offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada, or
(f) the police officer suppresses, tampers with or fails to disclose to an investigating officer, or to the discipline authority of a respondent, information that is material to a proceeding or potential proceeding under Part 9 of the Act.

Disciplinary defaults
4 (1) In this Code, "disciplinary default" means
(a) discreditable conduct,
(b) neglect of duty,
(c) deceit,
(d) improper disclosure of information,
(e) corrupt practice,
(f) abuse of authority,
(g) improper use and care of firearms,
(h) damage to police property,
(i) misuse of intoxicating liquor or drugs in a manner prejudicial to duty,
(j) conduct constituting an offence,
(k) being a party to a disciplinary default, or
(l) improper off-duty conduct.
(2) It is a breach of this Code to commit, or to attempt to commit, a disciplinary default referred to in subsection (1).

R vs.Trask (1985),45CR. (3d) 137,18 c.c.c. (3d) 514(s.c.c.)-Where defendant has been denied the right to retain an instruct counsel without DELAY, evidence of the breathalyser test should be excluded because its adminission would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

(1) Alleged accused is contacted by the children aids society in which was Created by P.C. Mark Ashworth #3266 call from back on September Seventh in the year two thousand and ten…In which full disclosure has been denied.
(1a) He who creates the controversy- Holds the liabilty., P.C. Ashworth created it, as the alleged accused was not breaching the peace ,nor posing a threat to public safety.

(2) R v. Penner (1973),22 C.R.N.S.35,12 C.C.C.(2d) 468 (man.C.A.)- Privacy is an essential element of the right to retain and instruct counsel. Not allowing one who has been detained to confer with his lawyer in private when at the Police station is a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a sample on demand.

(3) Alleged accused suffered loss of liberities [ dismissed from work] as their Licence which one is not required/obliged to apply for as to apply means to beg, no one is obliged to beg to exercise a “GOD” given right- Inter fears with the common law right to travel unhindered as written an up held in the Great Magna Carta. was suspened for 90 days which is a conviction without a fair trial is intimidation .Too be tried twice for the same alleged victim less crime ,is a crime with in it self.

(4) Alleged accused was not afford any opportunity to call or address counsel.

(5) R V.Gyori (1993),50 M.V.R. (2b) 82 (alta.C.A.)-the opportunity to consult counsel must be provided at the Police facility to which defendant is taken for the bonna fide purpose of continuing the investigation. The Police are not obliged to take defendant to the nearest police facility for the purpose of contacting counsel where there is no other reason to go to that location.,

(6) R.v.COTE (1992) ,11 C.R. (4TH) 214,70C.C. (3RD) 280 (ONT) C.A.-SEE ALSO R.v. MISSASI (1993) ,79 C.C.C. (3RD) 339 (ONT C.A.);R.v. HIGGINS (1994),88 C.C.C. (3RD) 232 (MAN.C.A.);R.v PAYNE (1994) 5 M.V.R. (3RD) 189 (NFLD. C.A.)
The requirement in s254(2) that a breath sample be provided forthwith ”means immediately or very shortly after the defendant has been requested to accompany the officer for the purpose of providing the sample, usually at the roadside or in the immediate vicinity, if the officer is not in the positition to require that a breath sample be provided before any realistic opportunity to consult counsel ,then the demand is not a demand made under s.254(2) and defendant is entitled to refuse to comply with the demand.

(7) R.v.Brotten(1983),24 M.V.R. 76(SASK C.A.)-The section did not require the alleged accused to comply forthwith with the demand and the word comply must be interpreted to mean with in a reasonable time having regard to all circumstances, including alleged defendant s opportunity to speak with counsel.,

(8) Criminal Code 786 (2) Limitation –no proceedings shall be instituted more then six month’s after the time when the subject – matter or the proceedings arose, unless the prosector and the alleged defendant so ‘AGREE” WHICH IS NOT AGREED TO BY THE ALLEGED ACCUSED AS THEY HAVE DENIED THEIR CONSENT SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINNING Of subject matters.


(1) alleged accused receives a phone call from a friend requesting help in his business .
(2) alleged accused not being on good talking term’s with wife cause of matters at hand ,decides to go help friend.
(3) Alleged accused falls into a state of distressing as they have been subject to enough interference.
(4) days turn to week’s bill’s need to be paid an the alleged accused continues to help out the friend .
(5) weeks turn to month’s the monies are hard to come by as alleged accused is now deprived of their rights and could not conduct normal work if they wanted too.
(6) As the Durham Regional Police services are now conducting illegal searches on friends an client ‘s (checking on their automobiles) entering an leaving alleged accused private lands.
(7) Durham Regional Police services are now sitting across the street watching the alleged accused land.
(8) Durham regional Police Claim they have every right to do so ,when asked about their unlawful action’s (intimidation to say the least)
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by terr-y.
  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago - 5 years 3 months ago #115115 by terr-y
terr-y replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.

(8) Criminal Code 786 (2) Limitation –no proceedings shall be instituted more then six month’s after the time when the subject – matter or the proceedings arose, unless the prosector and the alleged defendant so ‘AGREE” WHICH IS NOT AGREED TO BY THE ALLEGED ACCUSED AS THEY HAVE DENIED THEIR CONSENT SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINNING Of subject matters.


(1) alleged accused receives a phone call from a friend requesting help in his business .
(2) alleged accused not being on good talking term’s with wife cause of matters at hand ,decides to go help friend.
(3) Alleged accused falls into a state of distressing as they have been subject to enough interference.
(4) days turn to week’s bill’s need to be paid an the alleged accused continues to help out the friend .
(5) weeks turn to month’s the monies are hard to come by as alleged accused is now deprived of their rights and could not conduct normal work if they wanted too.
(6) As the Durham Regional Police services are now conducting illegal searches on friends an client ‘s (checking on their automobiles) entering an leaving alleged accused private lands.
(7) Durham Regional Police services are now sitting across the street watching the alleged accused land.
(8) Durham regional Police Claim they have every right to do so ,when asked about their unlawful action’s (intimidation to say the least)
(9) Durham Police Services in which the alleged accused has denied consent to contract with an for their services, Continue to enter private lands of the alleged accused an detain ,intimidate an question all who came and went.
(10) Durham Regional Police services Begin to Enter said lands at all hour’s of the night banging on the door’s an window’s while awakening two young children an their mother who has to get up for work/travel far early in the morning.

(11) Durham Regional Police Services Begin to shine very bright light’s into the window’s of the children, an of the home at all hours of the night while pounding on the door /window’s hard , even after being told the alleged accused was not there an that she was seeking to file for divorce , intimidating/as well as terrorizing the children who are then afraid to go outside to enjoy their GOD GIVEN right to such at any time of day.

(12) This type of behaviour is certainly not lawful nor is it legal.

(13) Alleged accused after finishing up work an at this time being told what has been taking place ,decides to make his way back to deal with the matter at hand.

(14) Alleged accused had no obligation to the Durham Regional Police Services as alleged accused was released without any paperwork on the night/morning of oct 5-6 2010.,was denied a bail hearing at that time as well as counsel.

(15) Christmas comes and goes the alleged accused end’s up sleeping outside in -15 weather on Christmas eve. toe nails turn black,

(16) alleged accused then finds his way to a another friends house where they try in vain to get a lawyer to touch the case .

(17) once a attorney is found arrargements are made for alleged accused to turn their self in .

(18) P.C. Ashworth continues to intimidate witnesses terrorizing their children as well as he drives past their homes very slowly.

(19) Alleged accused turns their self in on December 29/2010 at 7 am,

(20) Once processed under protest and duress is held for a bail hearing that alleged accused was denied back on October 5/2010 even after claiming habeas corpus .

(21) At alleged accused bail hearing their claim of right an notice of understanding an intent was recognized. However was not rebutted an stands as truth in commerce.

(22) Alleged accused wife is granted custody of alleged accused at the bail hearing an is held unlawfuly/illegally reasonable for 5000.00.,Forceing Alleged accused into a contract with out their expressed written consent ,bail papers were sign under protest an duress.

(23) P.C. Mark Ashworth continues to shine bright lights into the children’s window’s of the alleged accused ..,
(24) On Dec 29/2011 @ 8:25 pm Alleged Accused is going to Max’s milk while standing in their private laneway unlocking family convayence a marked D.R.P.S. cruiser drives by shining lights @ alleged accused estate & into the bedroom windows of alleged accused children.
Alleged accused goes into estate too inform the wife too log in the occurrence
Alleged accused then continues to pull out of laneway to head east toward town ) As alleged approuches the inner limits of downtown .
Alleged accused see the marked cruiser pull’d over in front Tom’s General store.So alleged accused makes a right turn @ queen street heads south,then makes a left continues south on .alleged accused makes a right turn in behind Township offices @ 1 street.
Alleged accused continues through parking lot to a small through way to the front of the L.C.B.O which then alleged accused back out onto Cameron ,Where they park right in front of Max’s milk facing west.
Alleged accused enters store clerk asks how are you alleged accused states better if the Police would stop terrorizing their family.
This leads to a small conversation with the store clerk/owner during the conversation /while paying for milk in walk a Durham Peace officer arm’s up in front of his coat obstructing name tag rubbing hands together.
Officer is not known too the alleged accused,alleged accused ask how are you while officer is staring at them.
Officer say’s freezing, alleged accused say have a good one,
Alleged accused goes out the store front door an see’s a Police cruiser parked up close to the rear of alleged accused convayence .
Alleged accused walk’s in front of the Police crusier an takes notice of the licence plate number BLFA 449.
Alleged accused stops in front of the Police crusier and while doing so looks up an to no surprise there is P.C. Mark Ashworth sitting in the passenger side of the cruiser ,
Alleged accused being out on bail because of this loose cannon decides just to head home rather then approach this officer as too ask why he is try’n to intimidate/harass/terrorize the alleged accused &family.
Alleged accused heads west toward home making a detour through subdivision to avoid any inter action with these too officer’s

P.C. Ashworth # 3266 is in breach of 264(1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes the other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
• repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
• repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
• besetting or watching the dwelling, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
• engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
Section 264 creates a hybrid offence, and the maximum penalty if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment is a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. The maximum term of imprisonment for a summary conviction offence remains at six months, although the maximum term of imprisonment for uttering threats under section 264.1 has recently been increased to 18 months. Section 264 sets out and defines the offence of criminal harassment:

(24a) Bright lights being used to intimidated the alleged accused an their family and friends.
(24b) alleged accused is being stopped by All Durham Regional Police Service officer an having their right to travel un-feathered hindered
Alleged accused is given un consented too gifts in the form of tickets
Section 2.11 there is no power to stop an detain a person for the purpose of finding grounds for a search/inspection.

(25)Alleged accused does everything in their power to find remedy as too why Durham Regional Police services without CONSENT to CONTRACT keeps shining lights in to the alleged accused estate.
Here is an example /effort to clairify, these unjust action’s against family & friend’s
--- On Mon, 10/10/11, Bob Last wrote:
From: Bob Last
Subject: applies to p.c. Stinson....an p.c.Ashworth on 2011/10/07
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Monday, October 10, 2011, 1:12 AM
Only hours before, a Superior Court judge had ordered Hamilton police to pay almost $80,000 in legal costs to Dixon after a six-day civil trial found the police service and three officers _"_liable for false arrest, imprisonment, negligent investigation, and Charter liberty and security of person breaches."

who a wrote a fraudlent non consented to gift...for no horn on a bicycle well they search,d a home with no lawful or legal warrant....really they have to stoop this low as public Servant,s....
I might mention a formal complaint will be forward,d to your professional standrad’s branch..
I would also like to bring to your attention.these officers did not have any such consent to contract nor can they claim to be the injured party ,for that alone is conflict of interest.
the fact that these gifts come with a instrument to pay is also proof that a presumption of law has taken place.as well are bound by the bills of exchange act also these gifts are not true bills in commerce,as there was no consent given nor implied ,there fore there is no contract which requires consent of both parties [The consent which is implied in every agreement is excluded, 1. By error in the essentials of the contract; ,is, if Paul, in the city of Philadelphia, buy the horse of Peter, which is in Boston, and promise to pay one hundred dollars for him, the horse at the time of the sale, unknown to either party, being dead. This decision is founded on the rule that he who consents through error does not consent at all; non consentiunt qui errant. Dig. 2, 1, 15; Dig. lib. 1, tit. ult. 1. 116, Sec. 2. 2. Consent is excluded by duress of the party making the agreement. 3. Consent is never given so as to bind the parties, when it is obtained by fraud]
nor is there an injured party an clearly states in law no injured party no crime..i believe this is a direct vilolation of my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS WELL AS INTER-FEARS WITH MY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The "person"[legal entity] was never presented.....the gift does not have anything too do with myself ,nor does it even bare the correct spelling of any legal name connected to anything to do with my living breathing soul as a human being. As well no date of birth was given.. i will not take commands from a stranger or in my opinion any one that reminds me of Hilter .Show me you're papers or suffer arbitrary detention. This too me is a crime against humanity....
This as far as I am concerned is evidence of harassment in which I plan to file a claim.

Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.
This Charter provision provides both substantive and procedural rights.[1] It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance[2] and public health care.[3] As such, it has proven to be a controversial provision in the Charter.
Thirdly, there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)
This right has generated significant case law, as abortion in Canada was legalized in R. v. Morgentaler (1988) after the Supreme Court found the Therapeutic Abortion Committees breached women's security of person by threatening their health. Some judges also felt control of the body was a right within security of the person, breached by the abortion law. In Operation Dismantle v. The Queen (1985) cruise missile testing was unsuccessfully challenged as violating security of the person for risking nuclear war. In Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2005), some Supreme Court justices even considered Quebec's ban on private health care to breach security of the person, since delays in medical treatment could have physical and stressful consequences.
Some people feel economic rights ought to be read into security of the person, as well as section 15 equality rights to make the Charter similar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a liveable environment.[10] There has also been discussion within the Supreme Court and among academics as to whether security of the person guarantees some economic rights. Theoretically, security of the person would be breached if the government limits a person's ability to make an income, by denying welfare, taking away property essential to one's profession, or denying licenses. .[

(b) Good morning Brian

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Friday, November 11, 2011 9:22 AM
At Approx 8:49pm of Nov Two Thousand and Eleven one of your policy enforcement/peace officer’s went past the front of our Estate at a crawl an once again decided too shine very bright light’s into the bedroom’s of our children...This is not the first time this has taken place for our family was deprived of their father at Christmas time last year due to fraudulent act’s brought on by more then one of your officer’s. [an in fact continued to shine bright light into our Estate over 30 times scaring the h@@k out of our children as they also hammered on the door [this has also been put on public court record’s] sometimes more than once a night.]
At this time these officers continued to shine lights almost every night into our Estate’s window’s an have terrorized our children to the point they lock the door’s even on a bright sunny day. It was only recently that we were able to get them to go back out side an enjoy their God given right to enjoy this planet. When it once again took place last eve our children became very uncomfortable in their own room’s. How do you explain this too your children???. without lying to them ???
This type of intimidation must stop as it is uncalled for an our children are quickly losing any respect for your officers due to their continued actions needlessly against their family.
Although we did in deed report this to your call Centre we were informed on how to make a complaint an were told that we have to go too the local police station too pick up forums .
[Well last time this was done it involved entrapment on your officers part an time wasted for all as your officers gave chase to the people who picked up those documents an your officers endangered the public safety by passing needlessly lines of traffic an motorcycles as well as heavy truck’s farm tractor’s an a school bus...to catch up to the folks that casualty headed north out of your house on hwy 12.Once in behind these folk’s they pulled them over an continued to snarle traffic further causing commerce to crawl on a busy highway just to harass/intimidate/or abuse their power an nit pick those with in.]
So with this being told to us we knew that this was not the only way to file a so called complaint for any one can download a complaint form off your web site.
Also we will not be filing a complaint as we both know that they are swept under the carpet so to speak or returned as frivolous...which is a presumption on your bureau’s part certainly not the Truth of the matter’s...We are also very disappointed in the level of professionalism that is carried out by your police services/officer’s with reading the local paper it always seem’s to be something although we realize that they are only accused of such action’s such as dealing drugs while on duty or recently the Sexual harassment complaint that was written bearing the Alleged victim name ,but not that of the officer’s accused question is why is it because they are Police officers?? As it would seem to be that if it was not police involved in the actual crime. All the names would be printed???? Are these officers above the law.???...plus many other’s we have read about in Durham...
As you know these are crimes committed by the very folk’s that are swore n in as public servant’s to serve an protect[ too keep the peace] the people in which who have empowered them through consent/or taxes. The back ground of your De-facto Corporation must change an these few officer’s that commit these crimes against humanity must be held accountable in our opinion. We believe in our opinion that for public safety reasons that the officer’s names should have been printed as well as we feel the public has a right to know.
Also we feel as if our right’s with in the charter has been violated way to many times as people have the right to use their properties unhindered in their pursuit of happiness.
We hope that you do your own investigation as too why your officer’s continue to harass/intimidate an terrorize our family certainly you would not want this done to your children or family??...We also hope as a human being that you can understand where it is we are coming from in these matter’s.
We are currently working on a claim not a complaint as we have had enough of this corruption.
With all do Respect to you an your’s we would like to offer you God’s Peace as we are all brother’s an sister’s of our Creator. It is with great disappointment that we must report on these matters at all ...As we do feel that their is a lot of Good Respectful officer’s on your force however up here in North Durham they seem to be few an far between.

Have a great Day Brian.
All rights reserved.

Below are articles that were found during the course of research that has brought Great enlightenment /knowledge to the alleged accused .

-(c)---- Forwarded Message
From: Bob Last
To: "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:15 PM
Subject: please keep a copy for yourself an forward copies to P.c Ashworth an P.c Stinson as well as all your officers.

Driving IS YOUR RIGHT. Free Use of Public Highways IS YOUR RIGHT.

These are absolute truths without question, held up by courts in Canada and the USA, and fully recognized (albeit not publicly) by police forces everywhere. Every citizen and peace officer should read this page completely. TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE", and use of your private automobile on public roads and highways CANNOT be regulated, taxed, restricted or constrained in any way whatsoever whether it be via police roadchecks and traffic stops or by use of such schemes as "mandatory" insurance, registration , driver licensing (contracts), etc.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

From the day of the signing of the Magna Carta (the day of the horse and buggy) highways are free to the public. New rights can be granted, but existing rights can not be taken away (this is a basic principle of common law). The Charter of Rights was introduced in 1982. Until then the court relied on the common law (laws inherited from Britain).

• The Charter doesn’t override previous rights.

laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/26 . The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. (Comment in margin: “Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter”)

The Common Law:
• Magna Carta – was signed in 1215 when people placed a knife to the throat of King John
• English Bill of Rights
• Absolute Right of Bail
• Assize of Arms

Deceased MP Stanley Knowles declared in the House of Commons about the Common Law:
“It consists of a number of statues, some of them Canadian, some of them pre-1867, some since 1867. After all, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1688 and many other statues are in effect part of the constitution of Canada”.

Examples of Inalienable Rights
• Personal security. • Personal liberty.
• Right to own and enjoyment of personal property.

The government doesn’t own the highways.
• The government holds the highways in trust for the people. (Example: a trustee is holding your money, but has no jurisdiction to spend it without your consent, even if he thinks it’s in your best interest).
• The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest.
But not to destroy your rights to use them.
• Traveling on public highway in your car is a right not a privilege.

• An execution of a right can not be charged a fee.
• Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Advice: Use identification plates for cars that are not tied with insurance .
• Historical note: when insurance was first introduced rates were low. In Manitoba, in past 10 years, motorcycle insurance went up over 288%. The amount of motor-cyclists went down from 20,000 to 5,000.
• Other types of unlawful fees are: parking fees, speeding tickets, charges for registration and renewal of a driver license (they are there to raise revenue for police).

A "DRIVER" is defined in the National Safety Code - the Federal regulations governing commercial operations on Canada's highways - as: "A DRIVER is a person who drives a commercial vehicle".

Any common dictionary will tell you that the word "drives" means directing something or someone to a destination. "COMMERCIAL" means a venture wherein there is a profit, or intended profit. A "BUSINESS" is a COMMERCIAL venture. "MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITY" is exercised over Commercial TRANSPORTATION. A VEHICLE engaged in COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is called a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is the acting as a third party in the movement of passengers (with tickets) or goods (with bill of lading) in the exercise of the liberty or property right.

Since the exercise of exchanging one's skill and labour for money is a right, the driving of a commercial transportation vehicle cannot be deemed an unlawful act requiring a license. Therefore, the term "driver or commercial driver" can only apply to an "owner/operator".

What, then, is the "CRIME" in DRIVING?

DRIVING is a COMMERCIAL venture which uses the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS as a TOOL. This useage is a form of THEFT. Remember, theft entails UNAUTHORIZED USE as well as the unlawful physical confiscation (stealing) of property.

A "LICENSE" is a waiver of prosecution for doing something that would normally be unlawful.

A "LICENSE" is a form of CONTRACT.

A CONTRACT must have three factors, which are:1. An exchange of property of equal value. 2. Full disclosure of terms.3.

Entered into voluntarily by all parties concerned.(A contract exchanging your property (right to travel) for the "privilege" of driving certainly isn't a valid contract.)

Generally, an owner of property issues a "permit" or permission statement when there may be a situation where the user of someone else's property may be brought to question. A trustee representing a large group of owners would issue a "license". The Crown, and thus the Provincial government, is the trustee of the public highways and roads; and, therefore, has authority to issue licenses for drivers.

Upon receiving and acknowledging by your signature that you are a "DRIVER", you have admitted by signed confession that you are doing something unlawful. The public record of your signed application constitutes a "GUILTY PLEA", just as if it had been entered in the permanent record of a Court of Law.

Now, drawing from your own source of knowledge, you can understand that there is no "trial" or "jury" for someone who is charged with a crime and who enters a GUILTY plea. That person proceeds directly into the custody of the Crown as a convicted criminal. That person becomes a "WARD" of the Crown, and GUARDS or WARDENS have a military type control over that person until his sentence, or his debt to the public is completed.

How does this apply to DRIVERS? Driver's licenses are issued for a fixed period, the term of the sentence for the unlawful act. Licenses expire; but, the unlawful act is still of public record. Unlawful acts have no statutory limitation; so, presumably, you can forever be held accountable for the unlawful act of being a DRIVER.

The police act under the authority of a prison warden or guard when acting as enforcement officers of the Motor Vehicle Act. They are not acting as peace or public officers. Now you know why they can issue citations, decide fines, search vehicles, confiscate vehicles, arrest and confine people without a warrant and/or with no evidence of any crime as described in the common law, and maybe they even stretch it to the point of searching homes without a warrant (as the Federal gun control legislation supposedly authorizes).

Our government has converted us all into "CONVICTED CRIMINALS" by use of "Driver's Licenses" and other licensing schemes - such as the "Marriage License". The Sang Chong Case of 1909 in British Columbia (B.C. Appeals Court) stated in the Judges finding for a street peddlar of vegetables, that one of the freedoms enjoyed by the people was free use of the highways.

There are many precedent setting cases, as well as constitutional documents in the USA which state the same sentiments as did the B.C. Judges in 1909.

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL derives from the inalienable property right, in that, one has the right to exchange or sell property. The place of exchange or sale of property is the "market" - a term with broad meaning. Travel to market is guaranteed through the property right. Remember, LABOUR and SKILLS are property. Also, the right to travel is included in your right to go to the church of your choice. The travel rights were invoked in ancient times to prevent interference in the exercise of primary rights. The right to travel is part of the absolute right of "liberty". Liberty also entails the right to exercise other rights.

In the above definitions, there is a question as to whether a person who is hired or contracted to drive a commercial vehicle is actually doing anything that could be considered unlawful; and, therefore in need of a license. It seems that the licensing need would only fall upon an owner/operator or the owners of a trucking or busing company.

Anyhow, if you are not in the business of commercial trucking or busing, why do you have a "driver's license"?

The Motor Vehicle Act is private legislation directed at "commercial drivers". It is not the "law of the Land" or public (general) law. I bring to your attention the word "outlawed". Outlawed means being outside the protection of the Common Law. The protection of the Common Law basically means that you cannot be charged for non-performance of any regulation; and, that there must be damage to person or property before there is an offense which would warrant requiring you to appear in court. As a so-called driver (with license), you have been deceptively and fraudulently taken out of the protection of the Common Law (outlawed) by the quasi-legitimate Provincial Government and placed under prison or military law, where no protections or rights exist.

The COMMON LAW remedy, if you have a driver's licence, would be to revoke the licensing contract by CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE to the Minister of Transportation or the equivalent portfolio in your province.

The plate issued by the province, commonly called a "license plate" is (or was) only a registration number for identification. Most provinces have elevated cars to the status of a legal entity; and, have laid claim to actual ownership of cars and private trucks, with only possession rights going to those who believe they "bought" the car.

If you buy a new car, insure that you actually receive a "bill of sale", not a "title of ownership". A title of ownership only signifies "possession rights". Then, there is the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin. You have approximately two weeks after you purchase a new automobile to get the "Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin" from the manufacturer before they dispose of it. Do you suppose they dispose of it by sending it to the provincial government where the vehicle was registered?

Should you decide to go "whole hog", and remove your license plate from your car, there are some important steps you must take. First, you would need a "constructive notice" to the Provincial Minister of Highways telling him/her that you are revoking any assumed contract which supposedly made your car a "legal entity'; and, that you are withdrawing any form of implied trust which gave trustee ownership of your property - your car - to the Province or the Crown. Second, you would need a plate to replace the license plate, upon which would be: "This Car Is The Private Property Of (Your name, properly spelled out, See under TICKETS) Travelling Under Common Law Right".

If you do not have any plate on your car, the police have a perfect right as a peace officer to investigate a possible stolen vehicle.

The replacement plate is a trespass warning to the police that they are dealing with private property. Third, you will need to carry some proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale and , if available, the manufacturer's certificate of origin. In common law, possession is 9/10th of the law. If there is no official report of this particular piece of property being stolen; or, there is no particular evidence of it being someone else's property (say, by a name on the door, etc.), the police have no reason to question your possession.

IF, or more appropriately, WHEN you are stopped by the police, they are going to ask you to produce a driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Lock your doors and talk to the police officer through a slightly rolled down window. Remove your keys from the ignition. (They may attempt to grab your keys and seize your car). That would be armed robbery and breach of trust of a public officer if they do attempt this. Remember, although police do much in the way of commendable work, when acting as a motor vehicle enforcement officer, they are acting as armed thugs. Your response should be: Officer, has there been a breach of the peace? His response will include some statement in which he mentions the Motor Vehicle Act. This tells you that the Officer is not acting as a "peace officer"; but, is acting as a "Warden".

For a police officer, acting as a warden, to use arrest authority against a free and natural person for their exercising of their common law right(s) is a criminal act of common aggression. If he makes any move to use force, such as marshal arts or a weapon to effect an arrest against such a person, that becomes "armed aggression". Such acts are outside a warden's authority.

Several years ago, the Governor of the State of Arizona sent a warning memo to all State Troopers telling them that they were to leave peaceful and non-suspicious cars without license plates alone. If they were attacked or harmed by the owners of such cars, those troopers would not be protected under the Police Protection Act.


1. File an Abatement of type “Dilatory Plea”; it allows to change the procedure by which you
defend, by allowing you to make a statement before you are in “defending mode”.
2. You can’t use a lawyer, must do all by yourself.
3. Don’t appear in traffic court – by doing so you admit that you’re guilty. If you end up in traffic court, inform the judge that you want to be transferred to a regular provincial court.
4. Draft “Affidavit of Dilatory Plea”. It must be sworn by any magistrate or justice of the peace. Then give to court.
5. Provide court precedence (previous cases) upon which you will rely.
6. When in provincial court, ask the judge if you are judged by Admiralty Law, or by Common
Law. If Admiralty Law – leave, or if forced to stay, remain mute.
7. Otherwise if it is indeed Common Law, confirm with judge if rights and freedoms are preserved by Common Law.
8. Attack: prove to court that you have the rights to use the public highway using your “automobile” to travel for private pleasure.

Regarding the driver's license, you would ask: Does this car appear to you to be a commercial vehicle? Under common law, you would only have to prove financial responsibility if you were in an accident and have damage to other property. Most, if not all Provinces have the requirement for insurance to establish financial responsibility; but, that is written within the Motor Vehicle Acts - acts which are only applicable to commercial vehicles, or as they have been doing, applicable to vehicles placed into the trustee ownership of the Crown through vehicle registration.

So, for the "proof of insurance" question, you would ask: Does it appear to you that I have done any damage to any person or property? If the officer tells you that you must sign the ticket, put brackets around your signature (that nullifies your signature). If you are arrested, you can apply for "Haebas Corpus". You will have to, and should, research the use of that right, especially if you are going to de-license. Fighting any ticket or summons to appear is listed below.

Should you choose to avoid some of the hassles you would, no doubt, encounter if you do not register your car, you can sign the registration and put the words "without Prejudice" after your signature. The term "without prejudice" means that you are making no contracts by your act of affixing your signature to that document.

Most people confuse "driver's license" with a "proficiency certificate". The Crown has the duty to protect the public from harm. Automobiles are dangerous mechanisms, especially in the hands of the ignorant, the untrained, the careless, the alcohol or drug impaired, the emotionally unstable and/or the arrogant. A requirement for a demonstrated proficiency level and proof of proficiency in the form of a certificate would certainly be in order for the operation of a motor vehicle. (Although the term "motor vehicle" may imply provincial ownership, according to some researchers, here it is used strictly to mean a wheeled engine-powered machine used for travelling.) A peace officer certainly has the power to restrain the misuser of a dangerous instrument.

A point system is currently in effect. That system, combined with a requirement to appear in court to explain one's actions to a Judge, and before the public would go much further to deter inappropriate use of vehicles than the current system of radar speed traps and multi-nova cameras.

If you get stopped in a radar speed trap, you can demand that the radar, and the patrol car (if the radar is attached) be seized and sealed as your defense evidence. The patrol car would have to be trucked to a secure compound as the evidence may be subject to tampering.

If the policeman writes your name any other way than the proper common law way, (IE: John Fitzgerald Kennedy) it is a military name; and, therefore inapplicable to you ( if you have properly nullified your signature on the license you are carrying ). As a "ward of the Crown", military or prison names are legal in administrative courts - traffic courts. The proper common law presentation of a name is: First Middle Last - Start with a cap and the remainder of each name in lower case.Example: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Most tickets for speeding state a speed. For instance, 68km in a 50km zone. Fines are based upon 68km. You are allowed 50km, so, you should only be penalized for 18km. Of course, this is based upon your being classed as a "driver". If you take the common law measures mentioned earlier, such tickets are invalid unless there has been damage to a person or property.

If you wish to go to court to fight a ticket, question the name on the ticket. If that doesn't impress the Traffic Court (administrative - not judicial court) judge, then, after the policeman states his evidence and you are given opportunity to question him/her, say: "NO", I wish to call my own witness". You then name the officer.

Your questions to the officer are (and, these questions can also be asked of the judge): 1. (If you have the "without prejudice" on your driver's license, have your signature in brackets, or have "trustee" after your signature) Ask him to read the signature on your license. If he doesn't mention it, ask him to note the signature and additions. Again, this should make an impression on the judge.

2. Ask: Do you personally have any cause of action or judgment against me? His answer has to be: NO.

3. Ask: Do you know of anyone else who has a cause of action or judgment against me? The answer has to be: NO.

As an option, if you feel comfortable in doing so - and fiesty, you may ask additional questions of the officer, such as: Are you a peace officer? He has to say "yes". Was there a breach of the peace on the occasion of your giving me the citation which brings us here today into this court? He has to say "no".

Under what authority, then, did you impede my travel at (place) on (time and date) and serve me with this citation? He would have to answer: "The Motor Vehicle Act".

How does the Motor Vehicle Act give you the authority to violate sections 20, 24, 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta; and, do that against a natural person exercising his common law right to travel on Her Majesty's highways? His answer here (if the Judge lets him answer) may be: "You are a licensed driver".

Are you aware of the Sang Chong case of 1909 in the Appeal Court of B.C., the pertinant part which I will read to you?

Are you aware of the definition of "driver" in the National Safety Code as adopted in British columbia? Let me refresh your memory. (Read definition)

Sir, did you observe that my car was not a commercial vehicle when you decided to stop me on (date)? His answer: ??

Do you believe that a driver's license carried by a natural person who is travelling in his/her private conveyance gives any authority to a peace officer to enforce regulations which can only be construed as being enforceable against a person who is operating a commercial vehicle?

You then turn to the judge and demand that the case be dismissed for want of proper cause; and, demand that the officer and Crown attorney be sanctioned for the criminal act of "breach of trust of a public officer".

What about Risks?
• Government doesn’t have the right to make risk free highways by denying rights of people to use them.
• Individuals who choose to be around highways are deliberately placing themselves at
risk – its their choice.
• People still speed and occupy parking meters as long as they want.
• Speeding is not the cause of the majority of accidents.

Driver License
• As already covered, a Driver license is required only if vehicle is used for commercial purposes
• In literature referenced “automobile” means private vehicle used for leisure, and “motor vehicle” – a commercial vehicle used for business.
• Driver License is not a certificate of skill of driving.
• When you get a driver license, you sign a contract to Obey Laws in the Motor Vehicle Act. You are signing your rights away! You don’t have to sign it . Without signing you will not be granted a driver license, because they cannot take your money and your rights without your written consent!

Advice: Cancel contract by sending “Affidavit of Denial of Jurisdiction”. If no response (or denial response), send “Constructive Notice”. (Just Google it for info. I will post forms on this site in the near future)

More thoughts
• You can not be stopped by police without reason and asked to inspect papers, unless they have a search order from the court.
• You can not be charged with a possible crime if you haven’t committed it. If you don’t interfere with other traffic, you can not be pulled over
• The corner stone of a police state is the restriction on free travel and registration of the means to do so and the identification of those who wish to do so.

What is freedom if one is not free to move from
point A to point B, UNREGISTERED and UNLICENSED?


A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire. Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.

Those who do not fight for their rights do not deserve them.
Courts affirm that Citizens have the right to
travel freely on the public right of way.
If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." - Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout Canada and the USA today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of government.
"For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.


The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.• - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a
particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12
So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves.

#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual's common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state [and province in Canada] have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."


An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore people's rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":

And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right."

Aid&Abet Newsletter Mon, 03 Feb 2003
Driver's licenses are used as a 'guilty plea' and a signed confession of guilt. Police are given "warden" authority; rather than 'peace officer' authority over 'drivers'. The confiscation by the Province or State of the New Vehicle Identification Statement (NVIS) or Manufacturers Certificate of Origin(MCO) of all automobiles sold at the dealer level, and the registration by the Province or State of an gives it the status of a 'legal entity', thus making the owner a 'ward of the Crown' as a confessed criminal(license holder), with the 'privilege' of possession of that automobile. MAKE SURE YOU ALWAYS CARRY A SIGNED BILL OF SALE FOR YOUR VEHICLE.

Another recent successful court case: www.loveforlife.com.au/node/6499 No Drivers License or Insurance - Case Dismissed! - "I Claim Common Law Jurisdiction - I Do Not Consent And I Waive The Benefits"

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
[emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensing, the states and provinces have committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.
The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.
Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.
Furthermore, few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
"No one in his or her right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. XX "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke, 1784.
How should it work?
• Still need to pass a test (but without probation period) upon which a certificate of driving proficiency, and identification plates are given. Government should not profit – the charge should just recover their costs.
• Individual is not required to tell the government on which car he/she will put the identi-
fication plates. He/she can change their car every day, by reusing the same identification plate.
• The test doesn’t have to be retaken. Doctors are responsible to report to the Crown if they find that an individual in question can no longer drive correctly (e.g. impaired sight). Then the Queen should take the individual to court and present medical evidence.
• Bad drivers, criminals etc. must be dealt within the court – the court will suspend their driving rights only after they have demonstrated danger to other people.
• Insurance is not mandatory, but optional. Right now thousands are denied the right to drive
because they can’t afford insurance. If accident occurs – we are already paying for health care with taxes!

Traffic Control
• Slowing down traffic to snails must stop.
• For some city areas 60kmh is too slow. In good weather 80kmh is a reasonable speed for e.g. Grandview Hwy (Vancouver).
• Lights should be synchronized so that if traveling at speed limit, you always hit a green light.
• Number of red lights should be reduced and replaced with stop signs or yield signs.
• Some stop signs must be replaced with yield signs.
• Harsh rules that slow you down without reason are simply ignored right now anyway!
The only difference is that now these ignored
rules cost unlawful fees.
Right to Drive - 1
Driving brief and memorandum of law: Template can be used to challenge your state's driving laws. (An updated version is available with more case law and evidence. General format can be used to challenge your state's driving laws... just replace relevant information and be sure to include your state's dri
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by terr-y.
  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago - 5 years 3 months ago #115117 by terr-y
terr-y replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.
Traffic Control
• Slowing down traffic to snails must stop.
• For some city areas 60kmh is too slow. In good weather 80kmh is a reasonable speed for e.g. Grandview Hwy (Vancouver).
• Lights should be synchronized so that if traveling at speed limit, you always hit a green light.
• Number of red lights should be reduced and replaced with stop signs or yield signs.
• Some stop signs must be replaced with yield signs.
• Harsh rules that slow you down without reason are simply ignored right now anyway!
The only difference is that now these ignored
rules cost unlawful fees.
Right to Drive - 1
Driving brief and memorandum of law: Template can be used to challenge your state's driving laws. (An updated version is available with more case law and evidence. General format can be used to challenge your state's driving laws... just replace relevant information and be sure to include your state's driving code, and send certified mail.)
Right to Drive Handout: Example of what to hand out when you get a police stop for some innocent "infraction." (US version. Make appropriate changes for Canada).
www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm The Right to Travel vs Driver's License Scam
1 Chitty Pr. 32
Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186
Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607
Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171
Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943)
Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432
Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677
In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934
McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105
O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37
Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140
Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257
Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882)
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210
Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139
Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352
Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513
State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864
State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580
Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98
Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485
Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274
Bergh Business Law 30
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Woodward Quasi Contracts 9
More References
• “Rights Denied” by David Lindsay.
• “Corpus Julius Secundum” section on Abate-
3 comments Links to this post

Thank you for your correspondence of August 12, 2011, concerning self-defence and the defence of property.

The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a person’s home and property. A person is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from unlawfully entering the home and/or removing or damaging that property or to remove someone who is doing so. The Criminal Code also provides the basic defence of self-defence. Self-defence allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault, which includes both actual force and an attempt or threat to apply force against a person’s will.

Both defence of property and self-defence clearly allow a person to respond to force, actual or threatened, with force of his or her own. Where these defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal, such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force used in response to the threat be reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would thus have to be considered individually.

The police have discretion as to whether or not to recommend or lay a charge, based on the evidence they obtain from the individuals who were involved and from any witnesses. Even when a criminal charge has been laid, the individual may still raise the defence of property or
self-defence during the trial, at which stage it is the judge or the jury (if there is one) who hear all the evidence and come to determinations of fact, including whether the evidence is sufficient to justify an acquittal on the basis of such a defence.

However, I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that Canadians are able to protect themselves against criminal acts. As you may be aware, on February 17, 2011, the Government introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-60, the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act. Although this bill died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of Parliament, it is our intention to reintroduce this legislation. This bill would have streamlined and simplified the defence of property and self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code, as well as expanded the circumstances in which citizens’ arrests could be made.

Courts have found the laws on self-defence and defence of property to be confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Clarifying the laws in this area would allow Canadians—including police, prosecutors, and the courts—to more easily understand and better apply the law, and could assist prosecutors and police in exercising their discretion not to lay a charge or proceed with a prosecution.

Former Bill C-60 also would have expanded the citizen’s arrest authority. Under the current provision of the Criminal Code, a private citizen can only arrest an individual who is actively engaged in committing a criminal offence that occurs on or in relation to property. The Bill proposed to allow a property owner to make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after finding someone committing such an offence. However, the property owner would only have been permitted to make a citizen’s arrest when there were reasonable grounds to believe that it would not have been feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

As provided in the existing legislation, the arrestor would still be expected to contact the police as promptly as possible and the police will advise the arrestor whether to continue to detain the person until police arrive.

These proposed reforms also made reference to the existing Criminal Code provision on the lawful use of force, making it clearer that only as much force as was reasonably necessary could be used during a citizen’s arrest.

I believe that the provisions of this proposed legislation provide clear direction on the appropriate use of these defences, thereby providing Canadians with safer and healthier communities in which to live.

I also note your concerns with the RCMP, which is an agency of Public Safety Canada and therefore falls under the purview of my colleague the Honourable Vic Toews. Accordingly, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to Minister Toews for his information and consideration.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

c.c.: The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Public Safety

--- On Thu, 4/7/11, Bob Last > wrote:

From: Bob Last
Subject: Fw: The DMV Non-Disclosure
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 3:50 AM

Subject: Fw: The DMV Non-Disclosure

--- On Thu, 2/24/11, Ace wrote........
The DMV Non-Disclosure

When a good portion of Americans wake up to the facts of the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) non-disclosure regarding what IS a motor vehicle and what is not a motor vehicle, along with the true definitions of the associated words shared below, they will realize that all acts are voluntary AND who actually has the true power. (Not the usurpers!)

Let's take the case of the CB radio issue back in the 70's as an example of the power of the people. The FCC was trying to get all truckers to get a license for using CB's. The truckers flat out refused to comply and simply did not volunteer to get the license that the usurpers were trying to force upon them. United together, the truckers won!

In 1977 the FCC introduced an additional 17 channels to make the current 40 channels that are available today. Also, in that same year, the FCC discontinued the license that was needed to operate a CB station. A license is not needed as long as you operate and follow the rules and regulations of the FCC.

As it stands right now, when someone goes down to the DMV and voluntarily registers (Regis - comes from a king) their private automobile to get a title and plates, they unknowingly convert the auto into a motor vehicle and in doing so, a commercial carrier. This also covertly transfers ownership of the automobile YOU bought with your sweat equity to THE STATE. Here is the proof, as this is taken directly from the WISCONSIN TITLE & LICENSE PLATE APPLICATION:

Certification: All parties certify with their signature that to the best of their knowledge the information and statements on this application are true and correct. The prior owner's odometer statement has been shown to the applicant and a copy of this completed application including odometer statement has been furnished the applicant. COMMERCIAL CARRIERS: I further certify knowledge of applicable federal and state motor carrier safety rules, regulations, standards and orders, and declare that all operations will be conducted in compliance with such requirements.
Then there is a big X and a place to sign.

I know people will claim they are not a ‘commercial carrier’ and that doesn't apply to them. Guess again! There wasn't a check box for such an exclusion to that certification and it was done that way on purpose. The STATE could have one application for people with private automobiles and another for commercial carriers, but they don’t. Why?

Here’s why: Just for fun, try to find the definition of the word "passenger" in any State Motor Vehicle Code. I’ve personally asked five different State DMVs to show me where I can find this definition amongst their codes and none of them have it. Why? Because this would expose the trickery the DMV’s have played on people's ignorance to get them to voluntarily register their non-passenger private automobiles as "motor vehicles".

"Driving" and "operating" are commercial terms and are being used to designate such activity on unknowing people via the statutes (not laws) whom then are only recognized as a "person" (which is a legal entity) so that the government entities (which are corporations) may tax, regulate and control this activity. You’ll notice that statutes never delineate between man and/or woman. And don’t let them ever tell you it’s for convenience only. That’s B.S. If it wasn’t, why would they need to define the word ‘person’ in their law dictionaries and statues glossaries?

Definition of "driver" from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed., Pg. 940
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle

Definition of "passenger" from Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Pg. 1280. One carried for hire or reward, as distinguished from a "guest" who is one carried gratuitously...

So if you are ever just ‘riding along’ with someone and the get pulled over, if the officer asks you anything just reply “I’m a guest.” I’ll bet you $1.00 that you won’t hear another peep out of him. Or, do what I do: REMAIN SILENT! Don’t say: “I choose to remain silent.” That’s not remaining silent. REMAINING SILENT is remaining silent. Remember, in the legal/commercial world EVERYTHING has a meaning. EVERYTHING!!!

Definition of "motor vehicle" in the U.S. Codes is: The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31(6)

Definition of (10) Used for commercial purposes — The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Look these words up for yourself. It’s always a good idea to do your own due diligence. If you use a newer dictionary edition, the definitions may have been changed slightly to hide the true intent.

Ask yourself these questions: Do you charge a fee anyone for sitting in the automobile while you take them to school or to the shopping mall or while traveling in the auto anywhere for that matter? So what are WE going to do about it?

Begin by simply pulling out the copy of the Title and License Plate Application that you signed and read it very carefully. It surely will be different in "your" State, but the premise is the same. Then you can NOTIFY the STATE DMV that there has been a mistake, and you wish to correct it. They will probably ignore your request so then you need to send the next notification using a notary or two witnesses. This is just one more step in taking back your freedom to travel.

There are many Internet searchable articles on the subject of “right to travel”, yet I personally declare that it is not a “right” nor a “privilege” but rather, travel is a necessity of man.

Now for some good news! The latest development in our quest to rid ourselves of the ‘slave card’ (driver’s license) THE STATE (bogus external authority) requires us to possess, in what is I believe going to turn into a landmark case, one Rodney Class, a 71 year old gentleman (not a person) was recently cited for a traffic violation by a Dallas, North Carolina Police Officer. Rod filed into the court a Judicial Review for an Administrative ruling on this violation.


The Dallas, North Carolina Police Department moved for dismissal of the case with prejudice when presiding judge J.Randall May's ruled that: “POLICE OFFICERS ARE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS” and therefore the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

This may be the remedy we’ve been seeking.
(Documents at: unmasker4maine.wordpress.com /)

Travelers would still get pulled over for awhile but once the trend developed that they couldn't be prosecuted that might change things in a hurry. After all, it’s not like Rod Class fought the charge to dismissal, he simply filed for a Judicial Review and it was the police department itself who moved for dismissal.

So if one gets pulled over in a traffic stop, one could cite J.Randall May's ruling that police are in fact “private contractors” thus the court will have no jurisdiction.

"So go ahead officer and write YOUR ticket and when YOUR case is dismissed I'll bill you personally for my time and/or I may also counter-sue YOU for false arrest. (Remember kids: A traffic stop IS an arrest.) So let me go on my merry way now and I'll forget the whole matter."

One other thing: If you are ever in a car wreck never (as in NEVER) use the word ‘accident’. This is a commercial/statutory term and will earn you an automatic 20% at fault liability. Instead, use the term ‘unintentional collision’. When you use the word ‘accident’ you automatically admit partial liability.

Safe traveling!

"True freedom doesn't come from a piece of paper, right or privilege, rather it's the understanding of your status. Knowing who you truly are and who you are not, then being/living it." ~ Steven

Walking in peace on planet Earth.

"If you see something, say something."
...Homeland Security

"Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

(f) Canada is created on lies, deceit, theft and the fact alleged Canadian’s DO believe in the impossible! This is an essay detailing “The Truth about Non-Canada!” or, if you prefer, you could say it reveal’s” The Myth of Canada!“, Or it could be the story of “Canada: the Non-Country!”
When we refer to our current alleged Canadian government as de jure, we no doubt mean de facto, since de facto means “in fact”, but not “by law”, which is what de jure means. In other words, a lawful government is a de jure government.
A government that exists by deception and fraud, and not by lawful authority, is a de facto government.
It’s highly unlikely that the Canadian establishment, with political millionaire shysters as its vanguard, is ignorant of the actual history of Canada and its fake government. The fake version taught in our schools has nothing in common with 135 years of reality; of government by millionaires, of millionaires, for millionaires.
Canada is neither a federation nor does its government operate with legitimate authority. Knowing this and keeping mum about it makes politicians and the entire Bar Association criminal offenders by default, if not by design…all of them, past and present. Which doesn’t matter much these days because it’s obviously cool (and very profitable) to be lawless, as far as those at the trough are concerned.
Judging by politicians, and the legal community’s visible conduct, their strategy seems to be one of perpetually reinforcing the nixing of the UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGITIMATE EXISTENCE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS (DE JURE) by teaching and celebrating a Canadiana, pickled in bald-faced lies, with much ado and hoopla.
It takes a lot of time and effort to separate the facts from the myths about Canada’s “creation.” Fortunately, there have been many dedicated Canadians doing the arduous research. By learning how constitutions and nations are properly created and then comparing this with Canada’s (and Britain’s) records of the time (and since then), these researchers have accurately re-created a chronology of what actually happened since 1864 and what Canada’s status is today…which isn’t news, it’s just information that is rigorously suppressed.
Few people would suspect that educational faculties, politicians, judges, media and the entire membership of the Canadian Bar Association would intentionally deny the existence of such a fundamentally important matter. With few notable exceptions, the public has unquestioningly accepted the official fairytale as gospel. Professionals, privy to the truth, are simply too busy chasing the buck and drop the truth from their conscience.
Politicians have banked on such developments with astonishing success since “confederation.” Today, nobody in his right mind (while ignorant of the facts) will believe that Canada has actually been under the control of impostors for 135 years; which continues to be so, as long as most Canadians are content to trudge through the dark, thinking they are soaring in the light.
Nowhere are the consequences of this massive deception more embodied than in the diligence with which Canadian judges help the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to ruthlessly administer a tax extraction racket as fraudulent and criminal as Canada’s C-36 protection racket. Faced with having to rule inescapably in favour of the aggrieved (tax victims) Canadian judges, spineless without exception, have turned into legal eels, symbiotically corrupted by their addiction to prestige, special privileges and highly salaried appointments for life.
Citizens, pay for judicial privileges with the erosion of their “constitutional” rights and speedy redress, while judges hide their bottomless cowardice to uphold the principles of the BNA Act behind overbearing pomposity, intimidation and self-serving and criminal bias, in an effort to protect the hand that feeds them.
There is no such thing as arms length freedom of judges from government interference. When it comes to the constitution and taxes, judges are deathly afraid to reveal their knowledge of the BNA Act’s illegitimacy. Instead they improvise slick Catch 22 procedures and set obstructive precedents based on legal sophistry; ostensibly, to “avoid the chaos” that would ensue if they were inclined to respect the (non-) constitutional rights of the people. They maintain that, by enlightening the public about Canada’s constitutional reality and by ruling fairly and with integrity, they would “unleash” real nation building reforms by a liberated public, while curtailing for themselves Ottawa’s munificence, which they view as anarchy.
Compounding their crimes, judges find nothing wrong with the massive counterfeiting of credit and the collection of interest from it by private banks. Nor does it bother them that this occurs without the blessings of the BNA Act and under the auspices of impostors with pretensions of governmental authority…all of which has become “real” under the umbrella of fake legitimacy.
Canada is joined in this constitutional dilemma by Australia and New Zealand. But, unlike Canada’s, their legal communities have acknowledged that a constitutional problem exists and they deal with it, viewing it as a grand opportunity of change for the better.
To understand why the BNA Act and the Canadian Federation are fake, here is a quick, nutshell explanation of how and by whom constitutions and sovereign democratic countries are properly created.
The “infamous socialist agenda” The creation of a democratic nation is for sane people simply a matter of common sense and decency; for the established elites it’s a leading cause of apoplexy and a matter of subversion, terrorism and communism…if not downright anarchy.
But assuming that a sovereign democratic federation is socially desirable – in other words, liberal rhetoric transformed into actual reality – no supernatural abilities or special law degrees are necessary to create it.
It requires merely a public consensus about the purpose of the nation and how to best achieve it.
a) First, there has to be a territory (like a Canadian province) who’s people desire to be a sovereign and democratic nation.
b) From among themselves the people select, by vote or appointment, a temporary assembly and charge it with the formulation of a constitution.
c) A first draft of the constitution is submitted by the assembly to the people for review and public debate, to provide an opportunity for changes.
d) After a first public debate the assembly retires to work out the changes, after which it is submitted again to the people for review and further changes, if necessary.
e) This process is repeated until the constitution has become a formula acceptable to a substantial majority of the people.
f) Now the people vote in a referendum to accept (or reject) the constitution with a pre-determined majority (75% for example).
g) If the required majority cannot be achieved, further changes must be made until the formula becomes acceptable to the required number of people.
h) The entire process is recorded and documented as proof of the constitution’s authority.
i) On the basis of the constitution a government is then formed, which is contractually bound (social contract) to respect it and conduct itself in accord with it.
j) Now this sovereign nation can form a federation with other nations, if it wishes to do so.
Note, that no consideration has been given to the manipulative interference from privately owned media monopolies.
Note, that the constitution is created first, then the government. To create a democratic nation for the people, by the people, of the people, it cannot be any other way.
Note, no foreign government can formulate (or create) the constitution of another country. It has to be created by the people themselves and becomes thus, for all intents and purposes, their protective property. It’s not only the law but is a contract which subjugates the government to the people. The government derives a limited authority to govern from it, always subject to the people’s authority.
Note, ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN FORM A FEDERATION. For example, a dominion is the subject of an empire, un-free, and cannot determine anything, much less federate, without the empire’s approval. A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANYONE. In other words, it is free to design its socio-economic organization or enter into federations in any way it wants.
A sovereign, democratic dominion?! But that’s not what happened in 1867. When we ask, did Canada become then a sovereign, democratic dominion, we must also ask, of whom or of what? The Crown? Rothschild? The IMF? Thus the incongruity becomes unmistakably self-evident.
In 1867 we-the-people didn’t exist, as far as political “participation” was concerned. In the exalted view of our betters, the colonial millionaire paragons of civilization, we were practically indistinguishable from the stinking squalor surrounding us. They habitually referred to us as “scum.” They were the landed gentry, lording it over us, the rabble, with style, opulence…and vastly refined superiority.
In 1864 an assembly of such unelected “colonial representatives of the Crown” (appointees and careerists) convened in Quebec and began to draft the Quebec Resolutions under the wise guidance of the Hon. John A. Macdonald, all of them men of substance, inspired by self-interest. The general “scum” of the day didn’t even know that this was going on, not being wealthy enough to vote and all….
Note, that the original draft was created by an unelected assembly of colonial appointees without the knowledge of the general public. In 1867 the “Quebec scheme of 1864″ was submitted to the Colonial Office in London for Royal assent, to be enacted by the British legislature. In between readings in the House of Lords and the House of Commons the wording of the preamble (the most important page of a constitution) was changed (a fraudulent slight of hand), without the knowledge of the delegation from Canada or anybody in both houses, into the oxymoron it has remained to this day. At this point there existed no printed copy of the original.
Remember, no foreign government can create a legally valid constitution for another country. What eventually emerged from the British legislature was a statute as phoney as a three dollar bill, with the first page missing entirely. The list of experts who attested to this fact in 1935 is impressive, indeed:
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs; Dr. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Commons; Dr. W. P. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto; Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University; Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.
And it doesn’t end there. Note, that there exists no documented record of a mandated assembly or debates by neither the elites nor the “scum,” nor a binding referendum in 1867 or since.
On November 8, 1945, the MP for Jasper-Edson, Walter F. Kuhl, widely respected as the pre-eminent authority on constitutional matters at the time, tried to revive the issue of Canada’s non-constitution/non-federation in the House. He stressed that UNTIL 1931 CANADA WAS NOT, AND COULDN’T HAVE BEEN, A FEDERATION since, until then, it was still a dominion of the crown.
Only in 1931 did the British Crown abrogate its authority over the Canadian Dominions (provinces) with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. This provided a most auspicious opportunity for Canada to become a truly sovereign, democratic federation. Instead Ottawa created the Bank of Canada, a central bank.
Once again the elite studiously “ignored” the opportunity Mr. Kuhl’s argument offered to create a bona fide federation based on a bona fide constitution. It created the Maple Leaf Flag instead; more focussed on image than on substance in order to maintain the deliberate deception. There exists no record of any constitutional assembly, any public debates or any constitutional referendum nor any confederation efforts since 1931, other than Ottawa’s denial of Quebec’s sovereignty, which is a fact.
Since 1931 the rest of Canada has been akin to a wreck, loaded to the hilt with gold, adrift at sea, under the control of pirates who gut and plunder it to their hearts’ content. There are even rumours, that the Rothschild Clan secretly claimed Canada as an object of salvage and is managing it and extracting its wealth from behind complex fronts within fronts, like a Russian Egg, with the outer, visible shell being the “federal government.”
But, people ask, didn’t Trudeau “patriate” the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982? Well, he actually did patriate, in a fashion…and a unified chorus of the public, the media, the judiciary and educational institutions all went “Aahh” and “Oohh” and “isn’t that nice of him?” It seemingly never dawned on anybody to ask who gave him the authority to draft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

click to enlarge
The problem here, is the word “patriate.” It didn’t exist in the English language until 1981, nor does it exist in any other language, ancient or contemporary, to this day. It is meaningless gibberish invented by Trudeau and his cabinet. The question “What does it mean?” is unanswerable. Perhaps it was intended to be rooted in the Latin word patris. Which could mean, by a wild stretch of the imagination, that Father Pierre fathered the Bill of Rights and Freedoms and generously bestowed it upon Canadians as an (unconstitutional) gift. More likely, the word simply exists to invoke a sense of constitutional incomprehension in order to discourage deeper probings by a mystified public.
Let’s give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a semantic mistake, and what was meant was that Trudeau repatriated the constitution. That would mean he brought it home in 1982. We must ask then, from where?! Where was it until 1982 if not in this “sovereign, democratic and federated dominion?” In Britain?
Why? In comparison with the proper process explained above, it’s practically impossible to believe that Canada is a legitimately sovereign and democratic federation, unless one is deranged or in the grasp of opiate dreams. Since most Canadians DO believe the impossible, what does this say about their mental and moral disposition?
No matter how we slice it the Canadian Federation remains a fiction. The federal government is a cabal of impostors; its authority to govern being non-existent until such time as Canadians wake up to the fact that EVERY TREATY ENTERED INTO (NATO, GATS, NAFTA, FTA, FTAA etc.) AND ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (ITA, GST, C36, PRIVATIZATION, DOWNSIZING, etc.) PASSED SINCE 1867 ARE NULL AND VOID…just as null and void as the non-constitutional authority of Canada’s community of bottom feeders…the judiciary and the Canadian Bar Association, including their bloated and subversive court procedures.
And let’s not forget the law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP, the police and CSIS, which have no non-constitutional authority to enforce (or protect) anything, much less the dictates (legalized crime) of impostors.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BOSS, YOU ARE! SO ACT LIKE ONE! Knowing all this, perhaps it becomes a bit more attractive for Canadians to get a taste of real nationhood and real sovereignty (i.e. freedom), instead of oppressive despotism and wage slavery, by adopting the purely Canadian concept of PARTICIPATION.
To sum it up, CANADA IS A GIGANTIC FAKE, an embarrassment of giant proportions. All centralized governments are imposed by non-legal force and their constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on, nor are their laws, as we can clearly see now. It will stay that way until such a time when nation building is again considered a project worthy of the creative and liberating efforts of free people…inclusive, consensual, universal and truly democratic.
As it stands now, Canada is a fake in every respect, in the hands of despotic individuals bent on pulling off the biggest crime in the universe…THE GLOBALIZATION OF FAKENESS…and again the establishment’s cheerleaders go “Oohh” and “Aahh,” duly recorded and endlessly re-cycled in the closed loop of the media monopolies until all alternatives have moved beyond the vanishing point…out of sight.
Oh, and what was that you were saying about fighting your tax assessment (or this or that alleged law) on grounds that it is unconstitutional? Perhaps you should consider moving to a real Country, or at least one that has a real constitution!
We, as alleged Canadians are living in an un-country with no law because we have no basis from which to frame any law, hence we have absolutely no fundamental rights, real or feigned! Everything is merely an “act” (no pun intended) designed to keep us un-informed, un-protected, and un-able to object.
• Related Articles

Licenses are Illegal
Licenses are Illegal, according the Imperial Laws of England, which are still in force, and cannot be repealed without a referendum.

In the early days driving licenses were issued to drivers for commercial purposes (eg. goods or passenger transportation), private people aren’t required to have a license for private travel. Section 92 of the Constitution grants us free travel within the Commonwealth.

The 1911 and 1913 referendums in regards to nationalising Monopolies were not carried.

The Statute of Monopolies 1623 prohibits monopolies, therefore why do corporations like Vic Roads have a monopoly on the roads?

Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 – SECT 8
Division 4-Monopolies
Alleged accused has been put through hell in these matter’s , matter’s at hand have put
Irreversible strain /stress on family Relation’s .

The alleged accused also has had his “GOD GIVEN RIGHTS” DENIED to travel the planet unhindered, Durham Regional Police Services /Ontario attorney General Office as incorrect /false /fraud-lent information uploaded to the national data bank. The alleged accused here by makes demand that this incorrect /false /demeaning information be removed , As it put’s alleged accused as well family/friends at risk of further unlawful/illegal action/possible violence toward alleged accused/family/friends/[security of the person at risk ] or injury - Pardon was honoured
However this no longer the case as alleged accuse is falsely stopped an arbitrary detained with family/children every time we chose to leave the country in which is not a “PRISON”. The alleged accused is not a “criminal” nor should they or family be centered out as such .This alone Brings the administration of JUSTICE INTO DISREPUTE.,

Travelling to the U.S. — U.S. Entry Waivers

It is illegal to attempt to enter the U.S. with a criminal record, unless you have appropriate immigration status or you have a U.S. Entry Waiver.
Haven't Been Caught Yet?
You may have often passed through the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) after answering a few standard questions about your citizenship and the purpose of your trip. You have been lucky. It is becoming more common for U.S. immigration officers to ask for identification for the purpose of conducting an RCMP computer criminal record search.
Once your record has been discovered, the immigration officer will download your criminal record into the U.S. computer system, and as a result, you will have an INS and an FBI file. Once you are denied access to the U.S., you will be required to apply for a U.S. entry permit called a U.S. Entry Waiver.
Refused Entry: The first time
The first time a person is stopped, they are surprised because they may have crossed numerous times without complication. They were lucky. Once your criminal record is discovered at the U.S. border, the immigration officer will most likely detain you a short time and refuse you entry. It can be humiliating. The immigration officer may inform you that if you ever wish to visit the U.S. again you will need to obtain an entry waiver.
Refused entry: More than once
If you are caught a second time (or more), you will likely be treated much more harshly because you are now knowingly breaking an American law. Under U.S. immigration law, immigration officers are permitted to seize your property.
If you are travelling by bus, the entire bus may be turned away. If you are travelling by airplane, your ticket will be stamped "VOID" and you will not be able to collect cancellation insurance. It is also common for people who are stopped a second or third time to be detained for a few hours and even handcuffed. The experience can be quite devastating.
It is much easier to be caught crossing illegally after you have been stopped the first time. This is because the U.S. now has its own files pertaining to you and your criminal record, which were created the first time you were stopped. Therefore, any search they conduct will reveal this information. If you keep trying to enter the U.S. after having been refused entry, you lessen the chances of being granted an entry waiver which would give you permission to legally enter the U.S. with your criminal record.
Caught While in the U.S.: Being Deported
It is illegal to be in the U.S. with a criminal record, unless you have prior permission from INS, or appropriate immigration status. If you manage to get into the U.S. and you are subsequently caught, you will probably be arrested and deported back to Canada.
Seizure of Your Property
If you are caught trying to enter or being in the U.S. illegally, American immigration officials have the right to confiscate your vehicle and your personal property. You will have great difficulty trying to get them back. In most cases, confiscated vehicles and property are not returned. Proceeds from the sale of confiscated property belongs to the American Government.
Offences Leading to Inadmissibility
Strictly speaking, there are some criminal offences which should not affect your travel to the U.S. because they are not grounds for inadmissibility according to U.S. law. One such offence is driving while impaired, commonly known as drunk driving. The problem, however, is that the U.S. immigration officials at the border turn people away for every kind of criminal record, even in cases where the charges were withdrawn. Essentially, anyone who has a fingerprint number (FPS#) associated with their name and date of birth will likely be turned away.
It is best to seal or destroy your criminal record before attempting to enter the U.S. This way, you will no longer have an FPS# associated with your name, and your record will not appear on any search conducted by INS.THIS ALSO IS AN OUT RIGHT LYE NO RECORDS WERE DISTORYED.
Effect of having a Canadian criminal record sealed or destroyed
If it is not necessary to travel to the U.S. right away, it is best to remove your criminal record first.
If you have been stopped and refused entry, you should apply for a U.S. Entry Waiver. It is looked upon favourably if, in your waiver application, you can show that you have sealed or destroyed your file in Canada. This helps to show that you have not been in trouble for some time and that you are serious about leading a crime free life.
If you have never been stopped at the U.S. border it means that they do not know about your criminal record. After your record is pardoned or destroyed, your FPS# no longer appears on searches that INS conducts at the border. Therefore, they will not have access to your past record. THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LYE
U.S. Entry Waivers: General
If you must travel to the U.S. before your Canadian criminal record is pardoned or destroyed, you will need to apply for a U.S. Entry Waiver to legally enter. Essentially, you will be admitting and giving details about your criminal record to the U.S. federal government. WE HAVE A COMMON LAW RIGHT TO TRAVEL THIS PLANET GOD TOLD US SO!!!!!
You will be required to submit fingerprints for certification by both the RCMP and the FBI. In addition to the basic application, there are many other supporting documents that could be added to your application. Approval of your application is subjective. This means that the better your application package is, the more likely you will be to have your waiver granted. Supporting documents that should be included and which should definitely be omitted is a judgment call based on experience. Pardons Canada can help you determine what is best in your circumstances, taking into account the date of your offence, the nature of your offence, current U.S. sentiment and practices, and your personal situation.
U.S. Entry Waivers: Time Frames
If the application is properly completed and all the relevant supporting documents and reports are included, it takes approximately 5 to 12 months for INS to review your application. Time frames can vary depending on which immigration office you apply to.
Collecting and preparing all of the supporting documents can take anywhere from 3 to 10 months. In total it will take anywhere from 8 to 22 months to obtain your waiver. Therefore, it is best to start the waiver application process well in advance of the date that you wish to enter the U.S.
Visa Waivers for People with Refugee or Residence status in Canada
People who normally require a visa to enter the U.S. do not apply for entry waivers in the same way that Canadian Citizens do. The requirements are fundamentally the same, but the reviewing process is much faster. Pardons Canada can answer your questions and guide you through the process.
Immigrating to the U.S. and Obtaining Work Authorizations
If you are considering immigrating to the U.S., or applying for a work authorization, you will need to undergo a police clearance. If you have a criminal record, it will negatively affect your application, and may result in your application being denied. At a minimum you will be required to do additional paperwork.
Alleged accused Does not consent to. This nor will a plea be entered at any time.
No Disclosure
(2) Except with the express consent of the prosecutor and counsel of record for the accused, the pre-hearing conference judge shall not disclose to the judge presiding at the proceedings any communications or discussion relating to a plea of guilty unless, whether pursuant to subsection 606(4) of the Code or otherwise, a plea of guilty will be entered at the proceedings.
March 7/2012 alleged accused goes to 150 Bond street to have subpoena’s commissioned J.P. Forestall refuses to commission three subpoena’s
(1) For the Queen /Regina which alleged accused has a right to subpoena as false accuser and has the right to cross examine .
(2) For Sgt Derik Wohlert #930 as alleged accused was last in his custody /Derik Wohlert #930 is with holding disclosue alleged accused has a right to cross have this officer present at trial to cross examine.
(3) For P.C.Shaw who is a witness to P.C.Ashworth’s unlawful action’s on sept 9/2010 Leading up to more unlawful action’s in which now seem’s to be a personal ban deta against alleged accused.
Justice of the Peace :Forestall then tears in half those three supeonas in front of alleged accused and obstructs due process of the law /The right to a fair trial/

Alleged Accused states they will seek a Judges order goes too see Judge Maligan
In court room 102 @ 150 bond st Oshawa. Alledged Accused is followed to the court room by three D.R.P.S. officer’s these officer go into the court to address.(Seemed alittle strange) Shortly after
Waiting peacefully @ approx 4pm Alleged accused addresses the court seeking remedy .

Alleged accused is told that a further Application will need to be filed requesting /which should be a demand as alleged accused has a right to cross examine Sgt Wohlert #930

Alleged accused is told that this may stall the trial set for march 16 /2012 which the Alleged Accused does not consent to any further Delay’s as this would constitute yet another Charter violation.

We’ll call this one hard to get head around. ,If it we’re not for finding this during the journey research /education path -Alleged accused has been on for quite sometime with hours in the thousand’s when it boil’s down to research .As much As the family could use the extra income if you will. Still have to look at the fundamental / moral value as that of a snake in the grass waiting for pray. With fundamental core value as a human being created by The “LORD GOD ALMIGHTLY” Alleged accused is still
Trying to wrap ones head around all that has been learned, Maybe in time .,Grand father always said never close the door or burn a bridge, May he rest in peace.,.
Sworn (or Affirmed) before me at the (City, Town, etc.) of in the (County, District, Regional Municipality, etc.) of , on (date)__________(deponent’s signature)__________Commissioner for Taking Oaths(or as may be)
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by terr-y.
  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago #115124 by terr-y
terr-y replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.
Food for thought!!!! :dry:

Some supporting caselaw:

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985]

38. Section 52 sets out the fundamental principle of constitutional law that the Constitution is supreme. The undoubted corollary to be drawn from this principle is that no one can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law.

39. Any accused, whether corporate or individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing that the law under which the charge is brought is constitutionally invalid.

Both the purpose and effects of legislation are relevant in assessing its constitutionality and either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate the legislation. A court not only has the power but the duty, to regard legislation found to be inconsistent with the charter to the extent of the inconsistency as being no longer of force or effect.

R. Vs. Dell

[9] The Court also stated that the mere fact a private person or entity performs what may loosely be termed a "public function" or an activity "public" in nature will not suffice to bring it within the purview of government for the purposes of s. 32 of the Charter,

R. vs Dell 2005

[8] The second exception to the general rule that the Charter does not apply between private individuals occurs when a private person can be categorized as "part of government" because he or she is performing a specific government function:

To summarize:

Section 52 - This charter is supreme and anything that is inconsistent with the charter is of no force or effect.

Section 32 - The charter does not apply to interactions between private citizens except that the private citizen acts as an agent of the state while performing a function of government.

5.2 Senior officers with area or force-wide

responsibilities must also monitor the broader use

of stop and search powers and, where necessary,

take Action at the relevant level.

5.3 Supervision and monitoring must be

supported by the compilation of comprehensive

statistical records of stops and searches at force,

area and local level.Any apparently

disproportionate use of the powers by particular

officers or groups of officers or in relation to

specific sections of the community should be

identified and investigated.

4.2 A copy of a record made at the time must be

given immediately to the person who has been

searched.The officer must ask for the name,

address and date of birth of the person searched,

but there is no obligation on a person to provide

these details and no power of detention if the

person is unwilling to do so.

Know the area, its crime and offenders, together with the latest intelligence or information. But

remember that a past offence is never in itself grounds for stopping and searching an individual.

be aware that you are liable, not only for your own actions but also for the actions of your

colleagues. All police officers have an individual responsibility to challenge inappropriate


Recognise that as a general rule any member of the public should be allowed to observe you

carrying out a stop and search as long as the person being searched does not object.The dignity

and privacy of the individual being searched is of paramount importance and must always be


Serious breaches of professional conduct and failures to comply with legislative requirements bring

discredit on the police service and will attract disciplinary action.

*Code A paragraph 3.1: Every reasonable effort must be made to reduce to the minimum the

embarrassment that a person being searched may experience.


14 Cap. H-5 Highway Traffic Act


(a) of a peace officer for the purpose of enforcing this Act and the

regulations and of any other law regulating the operation of vehicles

or the use of the highways;

(b) to make arrests upon view and without warrant for any violation

committed in their presence of any of the provisions of this Act or

other law regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the


(c) to direct traffic in accordance with this Act and the regulations in

the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite the movement

of traffic or ensure safety on a highway;

(d) in the lawful execution of their duties and responsibilities, to

require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop;

(d.1) to require the driver of a motor vehicle, on request,

(i) to produce for inspection his or her driver’s license and the

registration permit for the vehicle, and

(ii) to submit to an inspection of the vehicle, including

(A) the driver compartment, load and contents thereof and the

number plates attached thereto, or

(B) an inspection and test of the equipment of the vehicle;

(e) to inspect a vehicle in a garage other than a private garage or in a

repair shop or any place where vehicles are held for sale or

wrecking, for the purpose of locating stolen vehicles or investigating

the registration of the vehicle;

(f) to assist in the serving of warrants relating to the enforcement of

this Act and the regulations; and

(g) to assist in the investigation of traffic accidents and secure the

testimony of witnesses or persons involved therein.

in above it states other than a private garage whichs means they can not do a warrentless search.

) to make arrests upon view and without warrant for any violation

committed in their presence of any of the provisions of this Act or

other law regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the


if an object is inside a private locked garage this is not veiwed as [Quote;]> committed in their presence .

Nor do they have any proof that the private garage owner(s) knew such object was there ...nor was such garage owner(s )Caught in Procession of any such object.

Police forces across Ontario are thumbing their noses at the provincial agency that investigates cops, refusing to cooperate with or even respond to the Special Investigations Unit, documents obtained by the Toronto Star show.

A trail of letters written by SIU director Ian Scott to the province's chiefs of police show his mounting frustration at not being able to hold officers accountable.

The province released the letters, but whited out the names of the police forces involved.

In one case, after a police officer ran a stop sign and caused a collision that injured a truck driver and killed a fellow officer, the SIU found the police force's actions “rife with conduct issues.”

In a terse letter sent Sept. 22, 2009, Scott noted six possible violations of the Police Services Act. Among them: Officers waited four hours before notifying the SIU of the incident; officers required to promptly turn over their notes to the SIU did not do so; the uniform of the dead officer was thrown away before SIU investigators could analyze it; and several officers from the force used the same lawyer, possibly tainting the independence of their accounts.

Scott finished the letter with a jab at the silence that sometimes meets his requests for a response:

“While you have made it clear that you do not intend to respond to my concerns of possible breaches of the Police Services Act and its related regulations, I intend to continue to document them.”

SIU directors (Scott has held the job since 2008) send letters like this when they close a case without laying a criminal charge , but want to raise serious issues they want the police force to fix.

In one letter, Scott highlighted an alarming trend among members of one police force: three instances of alleged inappropriate sexual touching during an arrest. Details of the touching are censored from the letter, but Scott suggests a possible training problem that needs fixing: “Your service may wish to consider addressing this issue in a more proactive way.”

Through a freedom of information request , the Star obtained 300 letters Scott sent to police forces over a 14-month period beginning in January 2009.

When asked Tuesday if his letters get a response, Scott said in an interview: “Overall, the answer is no. Typically I don't get responses. There are some notable exceptions to that. There are some police services that are very good at responding — Hamilton, York and some of the smaller police forces like South Simcoe are very good at responding.”

The request for the letters was made as part of an ongoing Toronto Star investigation. Previous stories revealed that police officers are treated more favourably than civilians when accused of shooting, beating, running over and killing people, some of them innocent bystanders.

The SIU's job is to investigate serious injuries and deaths resulting from interactions between police and civilians, and decide whether to criminally charge an officer.

Scott said he wants increased SIU powers — the ability to initiate disciplinary proceedings for serious but non-criminal misconduct. In the meantime, all he can do is try to make police forces aware of possible misconduct.

“My objective in the long run is to put the police service on notice that this appears to be a problem ... and hopefully to ensure the problem does not recur,” Scott told the Star.

In nearly one-third of the letters the SIU director wrote in 2009, he pointed out possible misconduct, poor training or other serious issues discovered during investigations.

One such concern is delayed notification, when police officers wait hours, days or months to notify the SIU after learning of a serious injury, death or alleged sexual assault. In a June 2009 letter, Scott chastised a police force for investigating an alleged sexual assault by one of its own officers and for waiting a year and a half to notify the SIU.

In a letter dated May 5, 2010, Scott questions why a police force waited to notify the SIU until an official medical report confirmed the severity of the injury to a civilian's head. The SIU director suggests to the police chief that it should have been immediately obvious, because “when the paramedics arrived, (the man)'s head was sitting in a pool of blood and (he) initially appeared unconscious. He was placed on a spine board and transported from the scene to the local hospital.”

Many of the letters have been heavily redacted by government censors. Critical details, such as the date and time of the incident and identity of the police force and involved officers, have been whited out. Sometimes even the type of weapon used or details of the civilian injury were inexplicably deleted.

Scott has been a controversial director, drawing criticism from police forces for his perceived bias against officers and for his questioning of police conduct.

The letters obtained by the Star show Scott continues to have concerns about officers under SIU investigation using the same lawyer, who is duty-bound to share information between clients. Scott also takes issue with lawyers advising police clients on note preparation. Scott is concerned that such officer-lawyer relations taint the evidence, and he repeatedly refers to this issue in his letters.

Excessive-force concerns emerged in nine letters, including one that described an officer tackling two suspects “rugby style” because he believed they would run away, though they were not running. The officer punched one suspect after his left femur was broken by the fall.

“The amount of force used in this case was very close to the line,” Scott wrote in a letter announcing to the police chief that a criminal charge would not be laid.

In another incident, officers struggled with a resisting suspect, taking him to the ground and striking his leg seven times with a baton, breaking the lower right leg. The incident was captured on video.

Scott wrote: “While there were not sufficient grounds to lay a criminal charge, the use of force ... raises a number of disciplinary/training issues. Further, the voluntary statements given by the two subject officers do not accord with the imagery on the DVD of this incident. You may wish to address these issues in your (internal) investigation.”

In a third excessive force case, Scott flagged possible “training issues” after a 300-pound officer with a 230-pound partner punched a 135-pound man in his late 50s in the ribs somewhere between one and five times.

In eight of his letters to police forces, Scott expressed concern about the damage caused by officers' bad driving.

In one case, an officer not responding to a call and with no emergency lights on was driving 74 km/h in a 50-km/h zone and struck a cyclist that ran a stop sign.

The civilian was propelled into the air, and the impact broke his skull and bones in his back, chest and neck. The cyclist was also scalped. Scott wrote that while the officer's speed did not justify a dangerous driving criminal charge, “the subject officer was exceeding the speed limit at the point of impact by 24 km/h and according to the accident reconstructionist could have avoided the accident but for his rate of speed ... I leave issues of charges under the Highway Traffic Act to your police service.”

In another case, Scott notes that the officers broke rules when they tried to execute a “rolling” roadblock manoeuvre — where moving squad cars try to hem in and slow down a pursued vehicle — at too high a speed. The victim suffered “traumatic injuries,” the details of which were whited out by government censors.

The Star also obtained more than 200 letters written by Scott's predecessor, former SIU director James Cornish, in 2006. Cornish often praised police services, describing one struggle to control an armed man as “Herculean.” In another letter, Cornish lauded the reaction time of cops rushing to a scene, saying they got there while the “gun smoke still hung in the air.”

Though in a few cases Cornish notes possible misconduct issues, he rarely asked a police force to get back to him about what, if any, internal discipline or changes resulted.

In 37 of Scott's letters, the current director asked police forces to respond to his concerns. It is not clear if any did.

Cornish declined to comment.

In 20 of his letters, Scott said that officers may have broken conduct rules by either deliberately or unwittingly interfering with SIU investigations.

In one case, Scott said an officer appeared to “induce” another officer to commit this type of misconduct, and Scott asked the force to launch an internal investigation.

In several other cases, Scott told the police force that witness officers, who are required to talk to the SIU, refused to answer questions; in a few cases, Scott said he would be “happy” to supply police with tape-recorded evidence of the refusals, and in one case he bluntly asked a force to charge two officers with neglect of duty. In another, involving the broken jaw of a civilian, the dispirited director said that he had already tried to address the issue with the police force but never got a reply.

He wrote: “I am going to assume you are not going to provide me with a written response to these issues affecting the integrity of the SIU investigations.”

Police who lie: False testimony often goes unpunished
Published On Thu Apr 26 2012
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on digg Share on delicious Rss
Photos (5)
Comments (83)

A justice accused Niagara Region police chief Wendy Southall of failing to act after learning senior officers lied about a tip that led to one of the largest drug busts in Ontario history .

Jesse McLean and David Bruser Staff Reporters

Part 1: How officers thwart justice with false testimony
Part 2: Police who lie: False testimony often goes unpunished
Part 3: National police body says justice system needs to act over lies
VIDEO: When police lie
The Star's letter to TPS (pdf)
TPS statement for the Star (pdf)
Star investigation: Police who lie
The first time Toronto police Det. Scott Aikman deceived the court, a judge denounced his “misleading” testimony and threw out a cocaine charge against a man.

The second time, Det. Aikman’s story explaining why he and his partner searched a minivan led to the acquittal of four suspects accused of masterminding an international credit-card data-theft ring.

Aikman “either fabricated or concealed evidence” to justify the van search, the judge said. The four suspects, charged with a total of 321 offences, walked free.

Was Aikman disciplined for his conduct in court?

“No. Of course not,” said Aikman, explaining to the Star that he had done nothing wrong.

A coast-to-coast Toronto Star investigation found more than 120 police officers have been accused by judges of outright lying, misleading the court or fabricating evidence since 2005. Many of the officers have gone unpunished.

Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony

There is so little oversight of the problem that in some jurisdictions police forces did not know judges found that their officers misled the court. Internal investigations into four cases — three in Peel, one in York — were started after the Star brought the courtroom misconduct to the departments’ attention.

Compounding the lack of oversight is a lack of accountability to the public.

Big-city forces, including Montreal and Calgary, refused to say whether their officers were disciplined.

At the Toronto Police Service, where at least 34 officers have come under fire from judges for being untruthful in court in recent years, there is little indication Chief Bill Blair considers the judges’ findings a call for change.

The chair of the civilian oversight Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukherjee, told the Star he is troubled by this “serious issue” and wants something done to stop the lies from eroding the public’s trust in his police force .

“If we say a police officer takes an oath of office to uphold the law, if we require that they must be of good moral character and integrity …then someone who is found to have lied or falsified their notes, can they be said to be upholding their oath? Can they be said to have demonstrated integrity?” he said. “My simple, non-legal mind says: That’s misconduct.”

The Star sent letters to police forces across the country asking how they responded to the judicial findings questioning their officers’ credibility. The reactions ranged from receptive to unaware to dismissive.

In Edmonton, where judges found at least nine officers have been misleading or not credible, one was found guilty of three counts of insubordination, while two more are awaiting disciplinary hearings. Two others are being investigated. Chief Rod Knecht said the force has a range of disciplinary measures for officers found to have been deceitful, from re-training and fines to termination.

“The credibility of a police officer is sacrosanct. Our entire profession is based on the principle that police officers will act and be held to a higher level of accountability,” Knecht told the Star. “Every instance of deceitful behaviour damages the collective reputation of police everywhere. Once damaged, that reputation is hard to restore.”

In contrast, in two cases where judges found Ontario Provincial Police officers’ testimony and evidence was misleading, none of the officers were formally disciplined. (The force would not say whether a third officer, a civilian court constable, was disciplined.)

While OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis said the force “takes any allegation of wrongdoing against its members seriously and will investigate,” he questioned whether a judge’s “opinion” is “correct or proven.”

Lewis said criticism of the “quality and truthfulness of officer testimony is rare.” Where the force finds such cases, the officers could face additional training or supervision, or disciplinary action.

At the Toronto force, Chief Bill Blair would not be interviewed. His spokesman, Mark Pugash, accused Star reporters of bias and said “your story cannot be taken seriously.”

“A judge can comment on anything he or she wishes. Such comment, however, does not amount to a finding of guilt,” Pugash said. “The criminal justice system works on evidence, on examination, cross-examination and decision. It does not work on throwaway comments unsupported by evidence.

“You either don’t understand, or you don’t want your readers to understand, the fundamental distinction between a judge’s comments and a judge’s rulings.”

Toronto defence lawyer Reid Rusonik disagrees.

“How can there be any accountability or a proper disciplinary process in place if they don’t even allow for the possibility that officers lie? It’s surreal,” said Rusonik, who in the last few years has exposed police fabrications in more than a dozen cases across the GTA, six leading to the acquittal of clients charged with possession of a handgun.

Mukherjee, Toronto’s police board chair, said judges should not be ignored. The chair has raised the issue with Toronto Police brass, he told the Star, but has been met with a defensive rationale that while police are catching bad guys, judges are letting them go on legal technicalities.

British Columbia seems to be the only province with a formal reporting system in place. If a judge criticizes the truthfulness of a witness’ evidence or testimony, the prosecutor should report it to a senior Crown attorney. The prosecutor should also recommend to the police force that it investigate alleged misconduct.

In Ontario, no one tracks instances where an officer’s credibility has been brought into question. Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General says it is a police force’s job to investigate lying officers.

That is assuming someone tells the police. Officers who testify often leave court and are not present when a ruling criticizing their credibility is made.

Pugash said the Toronto force has completed 12 investigations into alleged courtroom misconduct since 2010 and found no evidence of wrongdoing with respect to false testimony. He said the force only learned of the majority of these cases from media accounts of trials. He said defence lawyers and prosecutors have a responsibility to alert police to allegations of officers lying in court.

Yet there is no requirement for a Crown to report dishonest testimony. It is the discretion of a prosecutor to contact the deceitful officer’s superiors. Some do, some don’t.

The consequence: Police misconduct is going unpunished.

Apparently no one from Peel Police knew when Justice Steven Clark found two of the force’s officers were “misleading” when explaining why they illegally entered a suspect’s apartment.

“Few actions more directly undermine both goals of the integrity of the judicial system and the truth-seeking function of the Court than misleading testimony from persons in authority,” the judge said.

Seventeen months after the ruling, when questions from the Star brought Justice Clark’s ruling to the force’s attention, Peel Police began investigating.

The British Columbia reporting policy and the case of RCMP blood-spatter analyst Ross Spenard shows how an allegation of a police lie can be properly, and relatively quickly, dealt with.

Spenard was testifying in the 2009 trial of a First Nations woman who stabbed her toddler to death. During the cross-examination, Spenard was exposed for misleading the court, including testifying that another officer had written a flawed forensic report when in fact he was the author.

“Staff Sgt. Spenard is the perfect example of a person who clearly lied under oath, and violated his oath to tell the truth, and he even agreed to this,” Justice John Truscott told the jury. “That conclusion is so clear and convincing, and so serious, that I suggest you should consider his evidence to be completely tainted, and without any value whatsoever.”

Four months after the judge’s comments, the prosecutor’s office formally complained and asked Vancouver Police to investigate Spenard’s conduct on the stand. He was charged and later pleaded guilty to perjury. He received a nine-month conditional sentence. He is retired from the RCMP.

Mark Berry, a former prosecutor whose 2006 case against a 649-marijuana plant grow-op in Surrey, B.C., fell apart after a witness, an RCMP officer, misled the court, said police forces should pay attention when judges make negative findings on officer credibility.

Otherwise, said Berry, now a defence lawyer, the police departments risk “dooming themselves to repeat the same mistakes in the future.”

Toronto cop Scott Aikman, who has several commendations from his force, did exactly that.

In the fraudulent credit card case, he and another officer stopped a van after it allegedly ran a stop sign. The traffic stop turned into a search under the Liquor License Act after Aikman allegedly detected evidence of alcohol in the van. The search turned up a white plastic bag full of fraudulent credit cards.

The judge did not accept Aikman’s evidence that there was allegedly alcohol in the van, and said that his “claims were after-the-fact efforts to justify a vehicle search” that he should not have made.

The lynchpin of Aikman’s evidence was a Gatorade bottle that one of the passengers allegedly admitted contained vodka. The bottle was empty when it was finally submitted into evidence. Aikman testified that it must have spilled while he was searching the van. It also was not bagged as evidence right away, nor was the bottle tested until a year after the bust, and only after repeated requests by a defence lawyer. At the time of the test, the alleged liquid residue was no longer testable.

The bottle’s “contents suspiciously and too conveniently disappeared,” Justice Miriam Bloomenfeld said, adding Aikman “either fabricated or concealed evidence in order to justify the search after the fact.”

Aikman’s “disregard for the accused’s Charter rights demonstrates how the actions of one state actor can denigrate the integrity of a prosecution,” Bloomenfeld added. “It is precisely the type of state conduct from which the court must dissociate itself if the administration of justice is not to be brought into disrepute.”

The decision is being appealed.

When asked about the two cases where judges found he misled the court, Aikman told the Star he was not allowed to talk to the media. Though he did not discuss either case in detail, he said, “It’s very unfair that one side is being reported,” referring to the judge’s comments on his testimony. Aikman also said his force would have investigated his conduct had he done anything wrong.

“The fact that there can be multiple findings about an officer reinforces the need for a formal oversight process,” said lawyer Graham Zoppi, who represented one of the accused in the data theft case.

Toronto Police Board Chair Mukherjee has a proposed fix:

There must be a formal mechanism through which the prosecutor’s office notifies the force and the police board whenever negative findings are made about an officer’s credibility.

Ontario’s Police Services Act, which Mukherjee has said is “silent” on this issue, should spell out whether a judge’s finding that a police witness lied constitutes professional misconduct.

Police chiefs, who oversee internal discipline under the Police Act, “need to think about their responsibility” in responding to judges’ concerns.

While officer discipline is controlled by the chief, as spelled out in the provincial Police Act, Mukherjee is seeking legal advice on whether there is a punishment the police board, on its own, can levy to deter lying under oath: Blocking promotions of officers caught doing it.

Frustration with police dishonesty bubbled over in a Niagara Region courtroom last August, when a judge made a controversial ruling in an attempt to get police brass to act.

The case stemmed from one of the largest grow-op busts in Ontario’s history. In May 2008, Niagara officers raided a series of buildings, including a greenhouse and former church. They seized thousands of plants and arrested eight people in what was described as the takedown of a $16-million operation.

The original tip came from a Hamilton detective, who had noticed a suspicious home in the town of Lincoln while visiting family over Christmas.

But the Niagara detective, James Malloy, and other officers tried to hide the source of their information and “made inaccurate and misleading notes” by claiming the information came from an anonymous source, Justice Peter Hambly said in his ruling.

“Malloy lied under oath and stated that he would have continued to lie under oath in court if he had not been caught,” the judge said.

The officers did not follow their obligation to share all the information they found in their investigation to the prosecutor, the judge said. Instead, they censored and redacted the information on their own.

Once aware of the officers’ cover-up, Niagara’s senior officers were indifferent to the misconduct, Hambly said.

“Senior officers have taken no action. The chief of police (Wendy Southall), who now knows what has taken place, has taken no action,” he said. “It seems highly likely that what has happened here will continue to happen unless the court refuses to hear the case.”

Hambly, frustrated with the police force’s apathy, stayed charges against two of the accused, saying the decision was worth the “price” to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

The day after, Niagara Regional Police Service requested an outside police force probe the officers’ conduct. The London Police Service’s investigation has been suspended, though, as the prosecutor appeals Hambly’s decision.

The force did not say whether the officers have been disciplined.

This amongst other public records discredits all such authority.

4) A valid legal explanation as to how I became subject to compulsory schooling (including how I became subject to the education act), as all governance must be by the consent of the governed, and I have never, at any point, willingly and informedly consented to being governed.
To govern someone without their consent is slavery. To interfere with someone's free will without a valid reason (such as a verdict of a jury) is oppression and tyranny.
I can provide proof that governance, and even the legislation, can only be applied with the consent of the governed, from legally recognized sources (such as Lord William Blackstone in Blackstone’s Commentaries, the Magna Carta, etc.).
The onus is not on me to prove that people have a right to be free of oppression and interference as this is self evident in law and morality.
Rather the onus is on anyone interfering with my life to prove they have the lawful authority and cause to do so.

Well, our story's are similar.

I went to get a doc notarized yesterday and was told I needed to show my drivers license. I said I don't have one. She said I need to see it so I know who you are. I said I have my Certificate of Live Birth which is needed to get a license....or any other piece of ID. She said she can only accept a drivers license. So I asked her this.

Are you telling me that I am not allowed to contract with you unless I submit to a private corporation that controls who is allowed to use public roads and force gimmicks and schemes upon on me, and that my right to freedom of association is here by vacated?

She said nobody had put it like that before.

I walked away feeling like I didn't exist......so happy happy happy.

Now I have a great lawful and legal excuse to not file stuff. Their own rules prohibit me from doing so.....laughing.
Judicial ConductOntario Judicial Council
Justices of the Peace Review Council
Home » Ontario Judicial Council
Ontario Judicial Council

The Role of the Ontario Judicial Council

The Ontario Judicial Council was established by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ch. C.43 to investigate complaints made by the members of the public about conduct of provincially-appointed judges.

In addition, it approves the continuing education plan for provincial judges. The Council has approved criteria for continuation in office and standards of conduct developed by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice which are called the Principles of Judicial Office.

Any complaint about the conduct of a federally-appointed judge in Ontario should be directed to the Canadian Judicial Council in Ottawa.

Composition of the Council and Terms of Appointment

The Ontario Judicial Council includes:

the Chief Justice of Ontario (or designate from the Court of Appeal)
the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice (or designate from the Ontario Court of Justice)
the Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice
a Regional Senior Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Attorney General
two judges of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice
the Treasurer of The Law Society of Upper Canada or another bencher of the Law Society who is a lawyer, designated by the Treasurer
a lawyer who is not a bencher of The Law Society of Upper Canada, appointed by the Law Society
four persons, neither judges nor lawyers, who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Attorney General
The judges appointed by the Chief Justice, the lawyer appointed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the community members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor hold office for four year terms and may not be re-appointed. In the appointment of these members to the Council, the importance of reflecting Ontario’s linguistic duality and the diversity of its population and ensuring overall gender balance on the Council is recognized.

Making a Complaint
If you have a complaint about the conduct of a provincially-appointed judge, you must state your complaint in a signed letter. The letter of complaint should include the date, time and place of the court hearing and as much detail as possible about why you feel there was misconduct. If your complaint involves an incident outside the courtroom, you will need to provide as much information as you can about what you feel was misconduct on the part of the judge. For more information, see the Council’s brochure, Do you have a complaint?

Written complaints should be mailed or faxed to:

The Ontario Judicial Council
P. O. Box 914,
Adelaide Street Postal Station,
31 Adelaide Street East,
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2K3
416-327-2339 (Fax)

How are Complaints Processed?
When the Council receives your letter of complaint, the Council will write to you to let you know your letter has been received.

A two-member complaint subcommittee of the Council will investigate your complaint and gather whatever information it deems necessary to complete its investigation (for example, copies of the transcript of a trial). Each complaint subcommittee is made up of a judge and a community member of the Council. Section 51.4(6) of the Act provides that the investigation into a complaint shall be conducted in private.

The subcommittee makes a report to a review panel of the Council consisting of four other members: two judges, a lawyer and a community member. Every complaint is considered by at least six members of the Council, including two community members.

Section 51.4(18) of the Act provides that the Council may dismiss a complaint if there is no judicial misconduct, refer the complaint to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice to speak to the judge about concerns raised in the complaint, or order that a formal, public hearing into the complaint.

If a public hearing is held, and misconduct is found at the end of the hearing, the range of disciplinary measures that can be imposed extends from a warning to the judge about his or her conduct to a recommendation to the Attorney General of Ontario that he or she be removed from office.

Regardless of what decision is made about a complaint, the person who made the complaint will be advised in writing of the decision of the Council.

For further information…
If you need additional information or further assistance, in the greater Toronto area, please call (416) 327-5672. If you are calling long distance, please dial the toll-free number: 1-800-806-5186.

TTY/Teletypewriter users may call: 1-800-695-1118, toll free.

This post is also available in: French


1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.

"The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend." Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.

"one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law.

See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
5 years 3 months ago - 5 years 3 months ago #115126 by unit144
unit144 replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.

That was some read Terr-y.

You have obviously done your homework on the Law and your constitutional rights on the geographical area known as Durham Region,Ontario.

I was impressed by your Affidavit and the detail therein regarding Statutes,codes,the Charter and recall of unlawful actions by policy enforcement officers.

Did you file a civil suit against the officers involved and if so was the matter resolved in your favor or did the corrupt officers get away with their criminal actions.

As you are aware,I have had similar issues to deal with and was not particularly successful in getting the courts to see things my way,probably due to the fact that the police did have ample evidence to charge me though this does not excuse them in violating their sworn oath or to acting without due diligence.

Police corruption is endemic in most jurisdictions with the rule of law paid only lip service to at best.
I can't see much point in playing by the rules when the opposition gets to make it up as they go.

Non compliance and emancipation from this system has become a necessary precursor to achieving any sort of freedom in this world.

Keep up the good fight brother. B)

\"The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.\"

\"Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.\"
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by unit144.
5 years 3 months ago - 5 years 3 months ago #115139 by Meta
Meta replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.

I noticed you referred to a Article III Judge.

Do you know the name of any Article III Judge or Article III Court in Canada or in each Province. These are the Courts I'm looking to, for remedy in Canada.

Is a Canadian Art. III Court similar to a USA Art. III Court?

Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by Meta.
5 years 3 months ago #115140 by Meta
Meta replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.



What's the name of the injured party?
Eddie Loper?
Scott Loper?


  • terr-y
  • terr-y's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Where\'s Our space Craft?
5 years 3 months ago #115170 by terr-y
terr-y replied the topic: Police acting like Hitler.
Injured party would be both Scott an Eddy.
As far as this area goes!!!
A list could be created with many names.
Moderators: UserAbuser
Time to create page: 0.383 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum