1. Is it truth?

Is it truth?

0
0
To access this page, you must have purchased a Membership and log in. If you do not have an active InPower Membership, please purchase one of the following membership options 24 Month InPower Membership, 12 Month InPower Membership, 6 Month InPower Membership or 3 Month InPower Membership.
Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 8, Answers: 10)
Asked on September 9, 2020 12:18 am
215 views
1
Private answer

Hello Monique,
 
I am not sure if any country recognizes Common Law. They prefer not to. They operate in law merchant, or commerce. 
 
The US is the only country that has a valid constitution based on Common Law, but even in the states the courts do not recognize Common Law nor the Constitution and it is very difficult to get a case heard based on this...
 

Some time ago Cal became aware, through a series of court hearings where he tried using Canada's constitution, that your constitution does not exist. The Governor General was not signing the laws into existence and neither was the Queen.

The Lieutenant Governor from 2001 - 2007, was Iona Campagnolo. She was very wise and she made a statement in one of her speeches, where she removed herself from liability. She admitted that she did not sign any laws, and neither did the queen whom she represented. Why? Because the laws are repugnant to Common Law and the Bible. 
 
Here is what Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant Governor said:
“As Head of State, I have the same mandate as Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of Canada; that is to say, apart from a single reserve power to sustain democratic governance . . . NONE!
 
. . .Thus Her Majesty is our head of State, while the Governor General is the defacto Head of State, and neither is in command of Provincial or Territorial jurisdiction!
 
…. A Head of State however is the CEO of the Province and is required to sign all state documents in the name of the People to render them into law.”
 
But neither Iona Campagnolo, nor the queen sign them! 
So, tax laws are not tax laws, and the driver's license laws are not laws, and the constitution is not a constitution, etc. etc.. The minute you step into Common Law jurisdiction, or a higher jurisdiction, they don’t apply. 
 
Trudeau tried to correct this with the Constitution Act of 1982, adding in a Charter and Bill of Rights and freedoms. 
Queen Elizabeth thwarted his efforts with the PROCLAMATION of April 17, 1982,
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/proc_1982.html
 
Of particular interest is this sentence from the queen's proclamation:
"Now Know You that We, by and with the advice Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two."
 

59 from Proclamation Act solon.org 35.9 KB View full-size Download
Image Credits: screen shot from solon.org

23 from Proclamation Act solon.org 118 KB View full-size Download
Image Credits: screen shot from solon.org
The operative words in the proclamation are “subject to section 59” (of the Constitution Act). Now section 59 defers to section 23 (of the Constitution Act), and what is 23? It is the language issue. So, the people of Quebec would have to agree that in their province, children may be educated in any language that their parents desire. In Quebec, this is never going to fly. They will not sign off on a language issue and the Queen knew it. So section 59 / 23 is the condition (subject) for which the Constitution of 1982 will come into force and effect!

And that did not happen. The Queen’s magic words are the strongest of all. So, there the Constitution sat. Canadians tried twice to solve this condition, at the Meech Lake Accord of 1987 and the Charlottetown Accord of 1992. Both failed.
 
No matter what anyone says about Canada’s Constitution, it is sitting in limbo subject to section 59. Section 59 says, when 23 is satisfied, there has to be another Proclamation and this section has to be not only repealed, but disappeared. As of this writing, there has been no proclamation, and section 59 still appears in the document.
 
“Now Know You . . .  Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two.”The 1982 Constitution with its Bill of Rights has not yet come into force. That is why, when you go into court and try to assert your freedom rights by way of the Constitution, they love it. They know that the constitution does not exist and you just gave them jurisdiction. 
 
So, now you can see the role that Quebec has played in this long-running theatrical.

 
 

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Answers: 474)
Answered on September 9, 2020 4:21 pm
fascinating!
( at September 11, 2020 6:17 pm)
fascinating!
( at September 11, 2020 6:17 pm)
{"cart_token":"","hash":"","cart_data":""}