Untitled Document

PETITION TO PRESS MY CHARGE TO DELIVER CASE FILE # 182787-D TO A TRIBUNAL

Our Westminster Archetypal form holds a hammer in its form to a Peaceful resolution to tyranny:

John Locke used a tribunal to take down tyranny created by the Stuarts, and abolish slavery

It’s the last resort & most powerful means to a Peaceful remedy to an insane form
The only way to trigger a tribunal is by creating a really big insult to the court

That’s it: But take my word for it, they have really thick skin, they don’t flinch at my insults
But when the Crown heard my next insult, they barred me from entering the courtroom to prevent me from expressing my insult, and summarily ordered me to file in Supreme Court

In order to support a charge of delivering any case file(s) to a tribunal, the defendant must present to a judge a case that is so insulting to this Judge as to render a judgment impossible, by this court

Therefore forwarded to a tribunal, which consists of 3 independent Judges who are bound to rule under ‘administrative law’ [which operates on a whole other set of abstract standards]
This tribunal’s ruling is final. They hold more power than a Prime Minister or a Queen [period]

Tribunals exist in the form as a Constitutional safeguard to redressing order created by tyranny.

The function of the tribunal is to preserve the form, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to do
The 1st reason for its existence is to recognize when [not if] the new Covenant is pressed.
Or what Sir Salmond called a blindsiding elephant – a gift from God to enter Paradise on earth
It’s this court session(s) where they rule my case frivolous or vexatious or send my file to a tribunal.

This all can be accomplished in one Petition to deliver my charge of wrongful imprisonment, and

The only root document I need to show this is my Reasons for Judgment on file 182787 D
- with this judgment, I can drag in Elections Canada, in order to take down tyranny under a police state

Cover page: My charge is that I am a victim of a de-facto government and the proof is here
Council for the Crown M. Sheardown and R. Makosz [there can only be one Council]

Ms Sheardown was solicited [hired] by the Crown to represent whose interests?
This is far from being a moot technicality, when I’m entering a guilty plea on the charges.

The role of the Crown changes when anyone pleads guilty, they are surrendering to Justice, and the Crown becomes the advocate to the accused, as opposed to the adversary role when contested
When standing under a claim of right; this Crown now holds the trust to defend the right of the people to benefit from Democracy, and this did not occur because this other Crown was allowed to present themselves as a third party intervener to represent a dissenting Crown
BOTTOM LINE: the Crown has no right to hire or introduce a devil’s advocate [period]

Now, this is the insult that forced the Crown to BAR me from entering the court room

The charge is ‘legal insanity’ [as opposed to personal insanity] as defined in law [DCL]

Legal insanity is omission of the obvious and failing to see the harm created by this

This occurred when this judge incarcerated me, without disposing of the matter, and

It is insane to act especially on a PPT charge like, there is no matter to dispose of

As I said to the Crown: The judge can judge all day long, but if she cannot hold the matter, means she can’t dispose of the matter, which means she can’t imprison me on hear-say
1] because there is no matter before her, and [2] the police holding it cannot deliver it to her

This is the case because I refused to sign over consent to have this court hold any of the property
This occurred when the Judge at my arraignment had invited me to negotiate the return of ‘some’ of my property, and at that time I made it clear that I had denied consent to the court to hold me or any of my property, and asked the judge for an understanding [stand-under] a point of law.

I asked “Does this court hold the jurisdiction or authority to hold let alone seize the property of any federal political party?” and she answered “no”.
I then pointed out the obvious, “we are the Marijuana Party; return our marijuana”
she said she couldn’t [and without a doubt, she could tell the police to deliver it; but didn’t]
The only ‘matter’ being handed to the Judge was to recognizing my claim of right
Frankly the only lawful solution she had was to send the file to an appropriate Higher Court

For her to rule that the only solution left to her was to send me to jail is by definition legal insanity
Especially when she could not [and did not] lawfully hold or dispose of the matter

Now before we leave the cover page, and proceed with a synopsis to her Reasons for Judgment,

it must be pointed out that it should be called a Reason for Sentence, because I was sentenced.

[point-1] The first point of any ruling MUST contain a ‘declaration’ that the Judge ‘finds’ me guilty

Nowhere in this document does ‘she’ call me guilty. She notes that [in-2] I call myself guilty, and the Crown and the police say that a person called ‘politician’ is claiming a right to possessing marijuana
[in-23-last point] She states that I must be incarcerated on the reasons ‘she’ stated,
that reason seems to be [in-22] that ‘in her judgment’ I am likely to commit this offense again
[I know it’s abused all the time] BUT the law MUST not be used as an Instrument of punishment

[point-2] She correctly notes that a date was set for a trial, but that was done at a Show Cause Hearing where I was denied a plea of “no contest, under no jurisdiction,” then denied a plea to prepare for an Arraignment Hearing and denied a Confirmation Hearing by Judge Kitchen [her immediate boss]

If the legal form no longer ‘permits’ pleading ‘no contest to no jurisdiction’ in the 1st place, then you can only beg for inaliable rights by Appealing in Supreme Court.
[and I have a problem with that]
I am convinced that if I beg for God given rights like Freedom itself, then I’m shrinking and

This ‘if’ terrifies me: [Heb 10] in the prophecy of delivering the new Covenant to Jacob, God says that he always acts thru prophets, and He will send one who will live on faith alone, who He hopes will not shrink, and ‘if’ he shrinks God will not be pleased with him”

I’m pursuing ‘a yes’ or ‘no’ to recognize that my Act of Supremacy Charter Challenge as a remedy
1. I’m petitioning that Authority has known that ‘upholding Creation is the new Covenant

It contains the most benevolent interpretation possible of where God says
“the new Covenant will turn Jacob away from godliness” [Romans 11]
[in both Hebrews and Romans] God promises that all sin will be forgotten by accepting it [and equally so] Hebrews 10 says that if they reject the offer they will be used as footstools and those who rejected the law of Moses die a merciless death on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses

By denying to deliver this Petition to a tribunal, they are rejecting a offer to fix the form [period]
It must be noted that the Judge says that I’m forcing the matter to court [it’s the only time the word is used]

[point-3] Peace Officers were in a very busy park, on unrelated events, and stumbled on a known political Officer of the Marijuana Party and they charged me with PPT on the ‘weight of the evidence’ that I had a pound of medicine, $1000. cash, a cell phone and lots of literature and documents

It must be noted that she refused to recognize that I had any ‘political’ literature and pamphlets

[point-4] She notes my criminal record that shows that I have one PPT conviction in 1984, and only 1 recent conviction for PPT, 1- conviction of causing a disturbance at City Hall, and 1 conviction for assault of an Officer of the Chief Justice [which resulted from objecting to a failure to comply with a Sec 337 Demand]
[point-5] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence for this crime [if they had any jurisdiction] would be to recommend a 4-6 month sentence and served by way of a Conditional Sentence Order [not in jail]
I quashed this motion by denying her any right to impose any terms on an Officer of any Party, and

This point was addressed in a perverted act, where she sent me to jail and when I was released; there was not one term or condition placed against me. This is unheard of…

[point-6] The Crown addressed the mitigating circumstances [point in my favour] that I had plead guilty
It must be noted though that again she calls the circumstances an event [as opposed to a matter]
[point-7] The Crown addresses the fact that I was on probation [and apparently this is important, probably because I was disturbing the peace, and my point is that as a politician, I’m disturbing the war on drugs]

Frankly the only reason for it being in the document is that I went to jail for breaching the peace

The Judge never specifies why I went to jail, and this appears as a probable reason

The Crown claim that I run my ‘activity’ as a sophisticated [well-structured] dial a dope operation,

The court did not call it an occupation [political parties have constitutional guarantees to protect ‘activities’]

[point-8] The judge claims that she is seriously offended by my attitude: I’m unrepentant

She is offended by my belief that I am moral right, and that legally it is not wrong to do my activity.
In law, she is offended by the fact that I hold no mens rea, [evil mind or evil intent] in my actions
In so doing she violated the Order of the Garter: “He who calls this [no mens rea] evil, is evil”

[point-9] The Crown enters 3 case law precedents including Malmo Levine’s Charter Challenge
[point-10] The Judge now addresses my submissions. She declares that everything that I submitted in writing was dismissed as without basis and irrelevant to this case, and denied them from being entered.

But she did make a note that I did add them to the court list in order to make certain applications

She assumes that I will appeal, but when you enter a plea of guilty, you sign off a right to appeal, the only avenue left in law is to press an application that contains criminal charges

This means the only evidence that she is considering as relevant comes from what she considers important in my verbal presentation, and that 4-5 hours of testimony is now reduced to a few points

[point-11] She starts off by says that I want [not demand] all the property seized to be returned to me
1. This no-account Judge refuses to recognize that I also made the friendly offer to pay for it

She is prepared to rule on Sec 8 [jurisdiction issues and all common law defenses known to man]
Sec 39 – Defense with Claim of Right, and Sec 337 – Civil Servants refusing to deliver property

This no-account Judge, by not recognizing my Sec 336 defense, is literally saying that the laws that forbid her from violation Sec 8, 39, 337 is not applicable to her and irrelevant.
1. It’s ‘legally insane’ to rule that she can omit a law that is there to protect me from her.
She adds that I seek a declaration that a political party can assume that they have a constitutional right to uphold a belief that God as supreme. [it just happens to be the founding principle of Canada]
[which reads] “Canada is founded on the principle of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law”

By sending me to jail she is ordering that it is a crime to defend the Supremacy of God,

It’s no excuse to say that God gave us Freedom, when the law legally took it away.

By denying any loyal opposition the right to defend any God given Freedom is tyranny.

the Supremacy of God, in a multi cultural society, has nothing to do with protecting any Church doctrine, it’s to protect Freedom from desecration of its citizens [period]

But, she does recognize [although indirectly] that I am a member of the Marihuana Party

Please note she does not call [recognize] us as the Marijuana Party of Canada.
Marihuana is legally a harmful manufactured drug and marijuana is lawfully a plant and she’s saying that no one can defend what’s right or wrong by using the Bible.
If God is not Supreme, then in her reality [court] her rule is Supreme over God

[point-12] The judge assumes the right to put words in my mouth, without referring to transcripts, and

‘If’ she did not understand correctly, I can appeal by agreeing that the judge made an error.

[point-13] She recognizes my defense of being a lost Canadian, and that I seek remedy under Sec 337

[since she chooses to ignores Sec 336] She can say, in effect, that it’s not her duty to guarantee that the fundamental principles of Justice be upheld in her court = legal insanity /tyranny
She is declaring that straw man jurisdiction issues are irrelevant in her court, and combine this with the fact that no body can enter a plea of no contest to no jurisdiction = legal insanity /tyranny

She is the one who noted that, in Essence, I seek a declaration that God is supreme, and
in reality she is declaring that a lawless police state is supreme even over politicians

She recognizes that I hold a person [straw man] under the Elections Act, and she recognizes that I believe that I can seek protection in the criminal code and that presumably since the Elections Act protects Democracy means it must have a priority over the Controlled Drug and Substance Act

By sending me to jail, she is declaring it’s now a crime to defend God and Democracy

[point-14] In addition she now recognizes one of those discarded documents in point-10; namely

Judge Bruce’s Reasons for Sentence did more than prohibit me from [only] possessing marihuana
She is correct to say that this document [by itself] only gave me an implied colour [not an express colour]

She refused to recognize that Judge Bruce’s ruling gave me an implied colour to “buy sell and possess marijuana” and that I hold an express colour from a ruling in Supreme Court

By not challenging the sale or buying of marijuana, in law, means she does not object to this activity
Now if I can buy and sell, why can’t I possess? She never declares exactly why I was jailed

[point-15] She starts off by saying that my religious beliefs were interpreted as comments
[ not convictions]
I’m convinced that God gave all wind pollinated seed bearing plants [and ‘everything green’ in Gen 29]

it’s a total insult to the Supremacy of God to reduce a belief in the Bible to ‘comments’

[point-16] She declares that only the above stated points are relevant to her decision
which are now listed

[1] The short answer to my lost Canadian status: it’s totally irrelevant to her jurisdiction over me

[2] The manner of my birth entry [being defrauded under 340 by the Queen] is no excuse

This line, in and of itself, indicts the Crown of violating the Law of Moses - [Sec 337]
[Hebrews 10] those who rejected the law of Moses died a merciless death…

[3] “His position in his chosen party is irrelevant” [Sec 8 Territorial guarantee of Freedom of Expression]

I guest this is her declaration to assuming a politician can defend the Supremacy of God
The sad reality is that they will use this ruling as case precedent against the next victim

[4] He is entitled to hold any view [as opposed to conviction] he wishes, [but it’s irrelevant to her court]

I guest now that I’m convicted to a jail term for my views, means I now have convictions

[point-17] She says: The fact that Judge Bruce did not prohibit me from possessing marijuana is irrelevant

Now at face value this is legal insanity: A cornerstone of Freedom itself is held in this tenet

“What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied”: To live under any other rule is a police state where unless it’s written [permitted] means it cannot be implied that you can do it
At least Judge Bruce did the least she could do; she ‘declared’ me guilty, did not imprison me, and gave me an implied colour under Sec 39, and now it’s not permitted
This Judge in a verbal ruling on this point said that I was correct in believing that Judge Bruce denied me the guarantee to stand under the Supremacy of God’s rule of law, and she added that ‘nothing happened, & now I must rule on [violating] the Supremacy of God’
This ‘nothing happened’ comment can only mean that the spirit of death surrounds them
They don’t accept that God said, with the new Covenant, sacrifice is no longer necessary

[point-18] The Judge recognizes that there are 2 mitigating facets [not-matters] to determining an appropriate sentence in my case, the first being that I am terminally ill, and need it as medicine

Now, this point addresses my right to possess medicine, and since there was not one condition on my release from jail can only mean that I again hold an implied right to buy sell possess medicine.

[point-19] The 2nd mitigating ‘facet’ is that I generally sell under the loose structure of a compassion club [reference to Malmo] and [to be noted] the product I sell is ‘sparkling clean’ – this is a compliment

It’s my position that the rubric that Judge Bruce graced me with the right to protect marijuana beliefs that are upheld in Supreme Court, and this judge did not directly take away my right to possession, and she refused to rule on the point of buying and selling, [because Judge Bruce had already dealt with it]

She had every right to go thru the motions of establishing what was the matter before her, in order to send me to the appropriate court with the proper jurisdiction to hold the matter
To send me to jail, with Sheriffs refusing to respect the rule of law is defined as tyranny

[point-20] In all circumstances [stated above] the Judge rules that she must address all the principles of sentencing, and over all of these, she must protect the public, and she only includes 3 of these principles

what must be expressed here is the legal insanity in not addressing this omitted principle
It’s the principle of actually only being able to intervene let alone sentence anyone while holding the matter, let alone ‘any ‘thing’ substantive’. Only once is the word ‘matter’ used in this document, and that was me presenting my Reasons for Sentencing from Judge Bruce as matter [that’s it]
She never actually ‘declares’ or ‘finds’ me guilty, because she actually has no matter before her.
The only substantive matter before her is that she holds no jurisdiction to do anything but send the case to the appropriate court, and in fact, by sending me to jail, she is declaring that tyranny rules.

It’s uncontestable, sending me to jail without ever recognizing any real matter, let alone disposing of the matter is legal INSANITY. This file must be redresses by a tribunal

and this must be done in her words ‘to above all protect the public’ [from tyranny]

[point-21] Now she lists the deterrents to me, by considering the following [again, she doesn’t call it matter]

This is now my 4th conviction involving drugs [which is a not what the record said in [point-2]
This is now the 3rd conviction in the last 3 years for PPT [again in conflict with the record in [point-2]

Court record will show that I was found guilty on Dec 5th 2005 on file #157479 for PPT and

The Crown then ‘elected to proceed’ on a co-joined case file # 157481 for trafficking, and at the trial date of Sept 28th 2006, the Crown chose to stay this proceeding,
The form says that after 1-year the Crown must proceed with the charges or drop the file,

or if the defendant so chooses , which I did at my arraignment hearing,

I demanded the file to be handed to me in order to enter it into this case file and to take it then to Supreme Court. In law she refused an offer which she really could not object to.

Now it appears that somehow this file is closed and appears as a 2nd conviction
Without my consent this file has been negotiated /converted into a PPT conviction
On the solid ground that: I’m being convicted for my 3rd conviction in 3 years.
The very nature of this fraudulent conversion creates a hornet’s nest of liability

The co-joined status of this file to the original case file is really important, because with it I can pursue a damage award that is contained in both file #157479 and 3157481, which triggers Jubilee
This damage award fulfills Jubilee for the whole world and if it wasn’t that it came with the message of the new Covenant that I would be pursuing the ridiculous in order to achieve the impossible.

I’m the first to admit that the damage award is outlandish, but a tribunal is exactly where the form must address this blindsiding elephant. After all, the promise is all sin forgotten.

I’m convinced that due to Herman Dooyeweerd’s work that authority has known for at least one generation that upholding Creation is the new Covenant; they simply did not know the ways and means to kick it in.

They are correct in assuming that without either Jubilee as defined in Romans 13 or Isaiah 40-on that it would not be possible to pull off, and it now is being presented as the fulfilling of both
This file contains more than one insult that should be addressed to a tribunal, and that’s all it takes

It’s not my political activism that created the legal quagmire in my case file ; it’s my lost Canadian status that created a damage award that can only be paid in Treasury notes,
I agree that it would be frivolous and vexatious to demand that these notes be paid to me,

In law I’m entitled to a pittance, on the belief that as a politician I did it for love

As defined in law - Love: A mutual respect of and for the rule of law

It’s easy to defend that these Treasury notes are payable to who inherits the Commonwealth Crown

It was not me per-say who suffered from the fraud, it was King George’s Registry
[as I see it] The key to fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy of 7 wicked sisters wanting to hold one man occurs by resurrecting this registry, in so doing: the form is preserved and edified

This tribunal literally appoints or becomes the trustees of the new Commonwealth Treasury
1. I believe: These are the men of the Nineveh as foretold in Luke 11 who repent [have a change of mindset] at the teaching of Solomon, and we enter a benevolent tribulation.

To hold solid ground this tribunal must pay off all the fraud created by these 7 wicked sisters, which triggers Isaiah 40-on and all debt in the world is paid [not robbed]

It’s not hard to imagine that this redistribution of wealth changes everything
In fact the promise is that we simply will not remember a thing about how we are now

Romans 13 says that when all debt is paid, the only debt that will remain is the eternal debt of love for our neighbor, and we enter a reality where there is only 4 Commandments

This is the mindset of the ancients, [Heb 11] it was taken away in the blink of an eye, in Genesis 3
The promise is that our stupor will be removed ‘in the last day’, in a blink of an eye.

The next court appearance must rule on whether this case file that holds my Act of Supremacy Challenge has no basis on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious, or forward it to tribunal. It’s not my call

Converting all oaths from upholding God to upholding Creation simply cannot be ignored as being the biggest elephant and the most strategic assault at ‘conquering with love’ that can be imagined
This next court date must face ‘a yes’ or ‘no’ answer to delivering my case files to a tribunal
It all comes down to faith, there is no substitute, the offer is a total about face into Paradise on Earth

Like a thief in the night, I have been pursuing the biggest cult of them all: the BAR [Jacob]
The author of this legal fiction advised that you should take any elephant that comes that shows a promise to being a better life; I most definitely did not come to harm anyone
Is it not big enough? I guarantee, everything changes just by sending this file to a tribunal

As last resort: In the event that you don’t believe, may the feet that use you as footstools be beautiful.