The Superior Court of Justice in Ontario heard a motion to appeal a decision made by the lower courts. The matter was heard by Justice Rady on 11 July 2013. The specific matter brought before the court was the Freeman Court Argument that they are not a legal person but rather a human being. This issue has been mentioned on this site and has been decided by various courts.
The fact that you are a human being is irrelevant to the court when argued by the OPCA and Freeman litigant’s. If you are going to battle on the Crown Corporation ground you can not argue that way. Making claims requires that you prove them where as defending against a claim requires the accuser to prove their opinion.
Click the link below to read the full court decision
Thanx Rob- to much to state, except, human being is a legal person- common law, commonlaw, common-law is interpreted as case law or English common law-medes verses Medes is thrown at anyone who tries to access the courts as man – no one has a right to access the courts, the legal society must allow u this privilege which is a sad state of affairs.
With that said; this guy was all over the place, a person is a man but a man is not a person, mankind has many persons [happy person, sad, brother, sister, driver ……..]
Now if that man took the other man[s] orders and fulfilled them to the best of his ability, he had a right to send him a bill, if not paid, then take him to court because servitude and slavery are outlawed in all its forms on this land,passive compliance; slavery was outlawed 40 years on this land before England 1778 i believe:
Constitutions, Chartres,bill of rights, and Covenants dont mean shit unless mankind enforces them, without access to our Court of Inherent Jurisdiction ( Supreme Court of Ont) where u are at, no one has shit on this land anymore; that case was 2013, it is worse now, with so many bad laws that are passed, guilty until proven innocent is becoming the norm, we now have the ruling class and the serfs as the norm and it is snow balling.
I disaagree, I think if you examine more closley there is a key that will reveal itself for you. There is a a stage where their arguments do not justify their actions, we always have remember the “roll”, or postition one is in…if you are getting a paycheck from working “in/with” any said “government” you are in “a service position”, a “public servant”, or at least “in service for the public good”. Service meaning “a servant”, not the masters…when we bring out the role in plain sight we can see who is actulally calling the shots, right? Or am I wrong?