PRESENTING THE BASIS OUTLINE FOR MY CHARGE TO CALL A TRIBUNAL 

1. PREAMBLE: Tyranny is defined by John Locke as “taking what no’body’ has a right to take” and
1. John Locke wrote the Two Treaties, and every great philosopher since then has agreed that the form was designed to implode, and that was so, in order to fulfill the promise of Manifest Destiny, as defined in especially Romans and Isaiah prophecies of Paradise on Earth.
2. No ‘body’ doth have the right to take away ‘the fundamental principles of Justice’, from our form in Canada or the Bill of Rights in the States; the form(s) are trap-infested to bar /preclude the BAR [especially] from this occurring, in order to protect by the public trust  
3. It’s by design that Locke’s 2 forms were placed beside each other: the mercantile form was cast in the United States, and the Westminster form was cast in Canada: The Westminster archetypal form provides ‘power to the people’ in ‘the fundamental principles of Justice, and

The American mercantile form provides the trust of ‘power to the people’ in the Bill of Rights’

1. My contention is that when they co-joined /married our two forms into NAFTA that both forms were deliberately perverted by NAFTA rules and regulations, by perverting the law thru lexicography, by concocting a blend of the two forms that taketh away [rob] ‘Freedom itself’ from ‘we the people’:
1. Canadians lost any protection from the fundamental principles and Americans were robbed of their Bill of Rights due to foreign obligations created by this de-facto ‘body’. 
2. The Sovereignty of each country is compromised by answering to a body, which is ‘by its very nature’ a de-facto government  that’s occupied exclusively by faceless bodies /corporations and banks and we the people end up contracted to serve the ECONOMY

-  which treats our rights as a negotiable pre-existing liability that exists in the contract

1. THEREFORE: NAFTA treats our inaliable Freedom, as the starting position to on-going debate to negotiate something less than constitutionally guaranteed Freedom for the people.
2. Constitutionally, it’s already totally illegal that this ‘contract law agreement’ allows NAFTA to be this new third party intervener that can override /ignore our individual rights, but ‘in’ this contract it’s not
1. Because governments courts and police must protect ‘we the people’ from the threat of ‘harm’ created by our partner’s unfettered Freedom to make a profit [pursue happiness]
2. This creates this new ‘color of Office’: “By the people for the economy under duress” [DCL]
3. Which occurs with just the threat of harm, created when any body unfairly burdens in any way NAFTA’s citizens interests, which opens Authority to be sued civilly to recover losses
3. As long as anyone operating under NAFTA can sue any one, even the government or courts for infringing on the rights to make a profit, then it’s unrealistic to assume that we humans have any rights, when NAFTA can negotiate /change its rules and regulations at will, without direct legislation

[BOTTOM LINE] -  A CONTRACT IS NOT A CONTRACT UNLESS IT BENEFITS ALL PARTIES

1. Authority would have you believe that no one can do anything about it, and that’s a big fat lie [period]
1. Frankly, when the truth is known, we are in a society where everyone is victims of a legal fiction created by a lawyer called Sir John Salmond, who in 1895, created a legal fiction that:
2. A corporation is a person, with unfettered human rights to legally pursue happiness; and within a hundred years, we humans are trapped in a society where we are all created equal,
1. We are all ‘legally’ corporations bound to a debt created by a fraudulent contract where humans are ‘warehouse receipts’ until an impossible to pay debt is paid
2. [1Tim 4:2] “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with hot irons… having a form of godliness, but denying its power”
3. When Sir Salmond created this legal fiction, it was done in order to create a blindsiding elephant, and that’s exactly what I am delivering: it’s called Jubilee.
3. For 70 weeks now, I have been badgering the courts to send my case files to a tribunal, and I frankly refuse to stop pursuing ‘a yes’ or ‘no’ answer to recognizing the new Covenant
1. It’s simple: All they have to do is rule that my next Petition to deliver my Charter Challenge of the Act of Supremacy to a tribunal is ‘frivolous and vexatious’

[Rom 11]   I’m convinced that this is the last day that I can press my claim to Jubilee, and
as to God’s promise everything changes [METANOIA], where they will no longer be in stupor

1. Authority is forced to face the big question of “Why not?”  [BOTTOM LINE] of Hebrews 10