I have recently been told that the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 32 argument” doesn’t work based on the case law of Regina v. Scott Douglas Petrie that you can read by clicking here. The problem with these statements are they are made by people who obviously don’t fully read AND comprehend what the justice is saying.
Doug Petrie is another
person who has fallen for what I call “The Name Game”. It’s the same thing as is frequently seen by those who call themselves “Freeman On The Land”. Now I have no hostility towards these people but I do have disagreements and this is perhaps the greatest of them. Trying to deny the name and, in Doug’s case, erroneously claiming the name is government property and as such an agent of the government is ridiculous.
The Name Argument
There is a Maxim of Law that states “The name is irrelevant if the body is certain”. Having read this case brought to me as evidence that the CCRF Section 32 doesn’t work as a defense in court it took me all of 60 seconds to realize why this man lost. As Justice Ker pointed out early in her summary where she states in “the identity argument”:
[35] It is irrelevant, argues the Crown, what name the applicant goes by or how he chooses to use his name. The Crown must simply prove that the man before the Court, Scott Douglas Petrie, committed the alleged offences. To that end, the Crown outlined the body of evidence it intends to adduce at the trial of these charges to establish that the applicant is Scott Douglas Petrie and that he is the person who committed the offences with which he is charged.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, denying the name will accomplish nothing as the name is irrelevant if the body is certain. There are things called Maxims of Law that you can find online or in Bouvier’s Dictionary. These maxims hold true in every case you will find as they are the fundamentals of law. Everyone should spend time reading them and learning from them.
The Capacity in a name Argument
Again the Justice states under her section called the Capacity in a name Argument the following:
[53] There is no requirement that in proving its case against an accused the Crown must establish in what capacity an accused’s name is being used, nor does the Crown have to prove that an accused claims ownership of the name contained within the Indictment.
Again Doug has made a critical error here in that he is claiming the name wasn’t operating under the capacity of a government agent. How can a nomenclature act in any capacity? It can’t and as the justice points out it not only lacks legal sense it also lacks common sense. There is a difference between natural and artificial persons recognized by law but the name is not a person. It’s just a unique vocalization that persons respond to whether they be natural or artificial.
The Government Agent Argument and Section 32 of the Charter
[71] The applicant asks somewhat rhetorically what evidence there was that he performs a government function and appears to assert that as the name Scott Douglas Petrie is presumed to be a government agent, the charges to not apply to the applicant.
Again with the name game. How can a name be an agent of anything? And what is with all of the claims this man is making?
Section 52 of the Constitution Act
[88] Accordingly, I fail to see what relevance s. 52 of the Constitution Act and the decision in Big M Drug Mart has to this application. In the absence of some specific, formal and proper application on this point, there is nothing to be adjudicated.
If it’s not relevant don’t bring it in; and don’t make claims, ask questions. He who makes a claim must bear the burden of proof of the claim. You are much better off to ask questions as to how these apply to you personally and not claim that they do not apply to you.
Conclusion
[89] The application to have the charges dismissed on the basis that the Crown has not established that the applicant has laid claim to ownership of the name Scott Douglas Petrie is dismissed.
[90] The related applications for dismissal of the charges on the capacity in a name argument, the government agent argument under s. 32 of the Charter, and the unsubstantiated and undisclosed argument based on s. 52 of the Constitution Act are also dismissed. In short, there is no legal merit to any of the applicant’s arguments.
As the conclusion clearly shows this was another freeman name game debauchery which makes no legal sense. If you’ve listened to anything I have written or said then you will know that I am not about walking into court houses and making wild claims. I have consistently advised people to ask questions and seek clarity from the prosecutors. The burden of proof is on them so don’t move it onto you by playing the name game or making wild accusations.
For a clear and concise study on the rules of the courts and how to win I recommend Jurisdictionary. It’s a simple and easy to follow course created by a lawyer (I know, I don’t trust or like them either) that explains clearly the procedures of court cases and how to maneuver yourself into a winning position. It doesn’t get into the statutes or case laws as they are seldom, if ever , needed. It does explain how to keep the accusers on their toes and having to prove their claims against you.
Just like in war, the best position to be in is the defensive position and not the attacking position. This is because the defender has the protections and shelters while the attacker must expose themselves in order to advance. Always remember the court room is a battle ground, a hostile environment, and act accordingly.
Peace and Blessings,
Rob
To Steve
Grow up! Nothing you have written is helpful or even productive to anyone with a free-thinking mind
The NAME is owned legally (not lawfully) by its creator to establish a vessel in which man can discharge his debt/sin. SO the NAME is a corporation owned by the de facto government/IMF.
The [legal] joinder man creates with the NAME is through SIN application which removes man from the position of the employer of the government to an employee.
Man, in essence, voluntarily hands over power of attorney over to a foreign jurisdiction and becomes a ward of the state through application of the SIN card.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is up to the government to prove claim… which they cannot as they do not have clear title of the body ONLY the corporation.
What I have done is authenticated my registration of Live Birth (in court this is as good as the original)therefore I am consider the holder in due course of the vessel/body. Additionally under the rule 12 USC 95 a(2) ‘Full Assignment’ I deposited my birth certificate NAME into the US Department of Treasury (USDT is not an US corporation but belongs under the IMF/UN) for full discharge and acquittal of all obligations made against that NAME.
Now the NAME is clear there are no presumptions and if they want to create a floating lien against the NAME, as a result of a secret society legal system, then go right ahead because if I cannot correct their error I will just send the matter to that which is the trustee… the USDT/IMF/UN.
If you are not having fun then you are doing it wrong.
Bullshit! Its your name, copyrighted for you by birth certificate dumbass. You own it, your parents gifted it to you! You also own any insurance bonds or commercial paper sporting your copyrighted property.. don’t believe me? Use my name for a few months…dare ya. You will be charged with impersonation and i will send u a heafty bill for copyright & trade-mark infringment. Which i will win by default and forclose on your property to pay the bill. Go-on give it a try.
And rob you are a complete moron it clearly states in section 32 that it only applies if you work in government or parliment and have sworn oath to office. And thae hierarchy continues on down to ANY & ALL acts, statutes, bylaws or codes. They only apply to someone who has sworn an oath to believe their fictions of law.
Canada is a common law jurisdiction dipshit. so private individuals are only susceptible to civil court jurisdiction. And only if the injured party has enough evidence to prove it was you who injured him.
Here is the proof for you.oh and Premier Lin also stated it on national news. Plus when a corporation pretends it is a sovereign nation…thats FRAUD! Ab Initio. Pretend = fraud. Oh and forcing legal obligations on someone who the code does not apply too and therefore does not convey a legal obligation whatsoever is called extortion or depravation of rights, UNDER COLOR OF LAW…& FRAUD! and FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING!
http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/fraud-unravels-everything/
SECTION 32
Application of the charter.
The purpose of section 32 is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2k1
Ever wonder why they call it a “legal name”? Because it is your evidence of incorporation and how there is an insurance bond created with “the security of your person” it is the surity that is used when you harm the public and they make a claim on your public hazzard/social insurance! Like hello mcfly!
Um…. the name; “Social Insurance” is not right up in your face enough for you? You idiots still don’t get it yet?
It’s very simple actually….it’s nothing like that big long-winded attempt at explaining that somehow they have been convinced that COMPLETE BULLSHIT some how has some sorta bearing or effect on physical reality if you do not believe said COMPLETE BULLSHIT, unless your an ignorant skitzoid who cannot discern imaginary abstract ideas, fantasy realms and mental constructs from physical reality.
It’s simple shit really. They have incorporated you, with their coded language, which is not english or french and therefore null and void (eg. “legal name”, corporate personhood, ens legis, persona ficta, juridical person), is a creature created compleatly from ficton & law…without your consent and you have been indoctrinated by their public media propaganda factories since birth & in their public schools for 13yrs+ to believe it!
Hint…believing fictions of law/legal fictions are real physical things, when they are quite self evidently nothing more than imaginary mental constructs which only exist as ideas expressed on paper, makes you an idiot, and/or a mentally-ill schizophrenic who cannot discern fantasy from reality…aka “a Ward of the Court”, or a belligerent savage. Either way your words have no clout or meaning. I mean who the fk would take advice from a skitzoid ignoramus who can’t even te) the difference from made up corporate fictions defined by imaginary borders drawn on a map and populated with fictions of law that do not really exist as anything more then a political, religious, economic subdivision or zone indicated by some guy scribbling lines on a map to indicate a “zone of influence” of a bunch of silver tounged pathological liars, schitzophrenics, narcissistic psychopaths and just plain FRAUDSTERS, manipulators, usurpers, parasites, grifters and con-men!
P.S. a “code” is a secret encrypted communication. Did you think they were speaking english in the courthouse?
Buhahaha…you have no clue what was actually said in any hearing or trial, and you don’t know what ther written corispondence says either, suffice it to say that it is all complete bullshit, hogwash and it’s all irrelevant, frivoles and without merit as their foundation of law is based on FRAUD, and none of it counts for shit or conveys any legal obligation on the peaceful inhabitants aka…the “public” and/or “civilians”, whatsoever!
All their Babble is an attempt to dupe or frighten you into capitulation. Its blatant extortion and coersion under color of law, and essentially treason, but not really as they all swore oath to the Temple BAR, the Inns of Court and one cannot have 2 masters so…in actuality it is espionnage, and or economic warfare and/or ideological subversion. Which all are wartime tactics and military opperations!
After all it is Martial Law they are following as they declared emergency powers since the very first congress!
So in summary nothing is what it seems and you have been convinced to believe COMPLETE BULLSHIT is the foundation of reality, law, and their imaginary society they claim exists but in reality is nothing more then a mass delusion!
“All the world is a stage and there are only actors who have unique entrances and exits…”
Bon chance, &…Enjoy The Show!
Definition of terrorism = someone who uses threats of harm, extortion and/or coersion and fear that physical force will ensue and cause harm upon you if you do not believe, obey and conform with their political, and/or economic and/or religious beliefs, affiliations ideology and mental constructs!
Let me start off by stating that I agree with most of what you state in this article.
The problem I have is that you are a blatant promoter of Dean Clifford (devoting a page on this site in “honor” of him), who, in his videos, is (was) a blatant promoter of the very topic you discuss in this article.
Therein lies your CONFLICT OF INTEREST in this matter. How can you “HONOR” the very man whose ideals you oppose in this article.
Essentially, get off the fence – TAKE A SHIT, OR GET OFF THE POT !!!
I suggest you re-read what I’ve stated here. My point is, and perhaps I wasn’t clear, that people who claim you can’t challenge the jurisdiction using Sections 32 and 52 of the CCRF WITHOUT playing the name game are completely wrong.
The case that I’m displaying the errors of here was posted on my Facebook community claiming that the CCRF limitations argument doesn’t work. The fact is that when used logically and intelligently the jurisdictional argument DOES work.
The defendant’s claim in this ruling makes no logical or legal sense as pointed out by the justice. The government does NOT own the name. The “government” doesn’t own anything. They are merely trustees who are suppose to be holding the people’s property, everything on and under this land, in trust for our benefit. So to make the foolish claim that the court only has jurisdiction over the name and not the man is foolish. The justice points that out and rules against the defendant because he tried to make invalid and illogical arguments.
As to the Dean Clifford comments, I don’t agree with everything Dean teaches or holds to but because I believe in freedom I also must believe that Dean has the right to be different from myself. Dean has done a lot of work in waking up others and his work deserves the right to be considered. Perhaps the “In Honor” title is improper but it was all I could think of. If you have a better title I’m always open to suggestions.
Dean is fine. He just thought he could make money for spreading truth. Boy was he wrong! Pay unto Ceassar…
Dean has done woke up thousands of people and has created a private community unchallenged by their fictions! P.s. you cant get facts from fiction!
What have you done for your children and fellow men and women to free the future my friend? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!
Steve you sir have no clue. Better off to keep your ignorat opinion to yourself. Cuz your spewing out ignorat bullshit…talking when you should be listening! Kind of hard to hear and receive important evidence and information if you’re gums are flapping, spewing dust into the wind…no?
Empty your cup steve cuz everything you know and have been taught IS A LIE! Not 1 thing or 2-3 things, or here and there, or one bad apple…ITS EVERYTHING!
To free yourself you must know that everything that you believe you know is a VENEER OF BULLSHIT…aka “The Corporate Veil”.
Start there and you will be able to move forward. If you do not grasp it, or it seems too overwhelming to be true, you will fail.
May the Shwartz be with you my friend. Bon Chancé!