BEFORE STARTING THIS TOPIC: There has to be an understanding that tyrants will never write a book on how to overthrow them
THIS MEANS THAT: The only really 'work' on how to protect ourselfs from tyranny are all theoretical works by legal juggernauts like Sir William Blackstone and John Locke and all kinds of old common law precedents, which Canadian politicians say 'The Charter of Rights' took away [not the politician who wrote it] after all they would not get away with it otherwise.

ONLY 1 PROBLEM: Constitutional no new legislation can be law if it violates the Constitutional,
so they don't use legislation to do it.
They use ORDERS IN COUNCIL to do unconstitutional 'things'
- The dark Luciferian Masonic connection to all of this is as simple as looking at the fact that Sec 33 of our Charter of Rights is what is being totally abused which has enslave all Canadians under "the Not with standing clause" or 'Orders in Council' [same thing]
- Politicians did not lie when they promised to never use it, but in extreme situations... They used it to enslave us and that's extreme Click Here to get a drift on how a bad law can be used to currupt absolutely
_____________________________________________________________________________

These first 2 quotes are from Sir William Blackstone
(10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) [taken from Wikipedia] was an English judge, jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the common law called Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in four volumes over 1765–1769.
- It had an extraordinary success, reportedly bringing the author £14,000, and still remains an important source on classical views of the common law and its principles.

Taken from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I Chapter 9.
"II. THE coroner's is alfo a very antient office at the common law. He is called coroner, coronator, becaufe he hath principally to do with pleas of the crown, or fuch wherein the king is more immediately concerned^e . And in this light the lord chief juftice of the king's bench is the principal coroner in the kingdom, and may (if he pleafes) exercife the jurifdiction of a coroner in any part of the realm^f . But there are alfo particular coroners for every county of England; ufually four, but fometimes fix, and fometimes fewer^g . This officer^h is of equal antiquity with the fheriff; and was ordained together with him to keep the peace, when the earls gave up the wardfhip of the county."

Take from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III, Chapter 26.
"IF the fheriff be not an indifferent perfon; as if he be a party in the fuit, or be related by either blood or affinity to either of the parties, he is not then trufted to return the jury; but the venire fhall be directed to the coroners, who in this, as in many other inftances, are the fubftitutes of the fheriff, to execute procefs when he is deemed an improper perfon. If any exception lies to the coroners, the venire fhall be directed to two clerks of the court, or two perfons of the county named by the court, and fworn ^m . And thefe two, who are called elifors, or electors, fhall indifferently name the jury, and their return is final."

CAVEAT: The second quotation is literally about returning juries; however, it speaks to the execution of process, and it would seem that the Sheriff, being the object of my Mandamus, are not fit to see due execution upon themselves; and, IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT the Coroner has refused the office, that leaves, by analogy with summoning a Jury, the office could be performed by two court clerks.

Taken from Wikipedia - DEFINITION OF CORONER:

A coroner or forensics examiner is an official chiefly responsible for investigating deaths, particularly some of those happening under unusual circumstances, and determining the cause of death. Depending on the jurisdiction, the coroner may adjudge the cause himself, or act as the presiding officer of a special court (a "coroner's jury").
The office originated in mediaeval England [1][2] and has been adapted in many countries which have at some time been under the influence of England or the United Kingdom.

England and Commonwealth History
The post of coroner is ancient, dating from approximately the 11th century, shortly after the Norman conquest of England in 1066.

The office of Coroner was formally established in England by Article 20 of the "Articles of Eyre" in September 1194 to "keep the pleas of the Crown" or in Latin "custos placitorum coronas" from which the word "coroner" is derived.

[2] This role provided a local county official whose primary duty was to protect the financial interest of the crown in criminal proceedings. The office of coroner is, "in many instances, a necessary substitute: for if the sheriff is interested in a suit, or if he is of affinity with one of the parties to a suit, the coroner must execute and return the process of the courts of justice."

[3] This role was qualified in Chapter 24 of Magna Carta in 1215 which states: "No sheriff, constable, coroner or bailiff shall hold pleas of our Crown". "Keeping the pleas" was an administrative task, while "holding the pleas" was a judicial one which was not assigned to the locally resident coroner but left to judges who travelled around the country holding Assize Courts. The role of Custos rotulorum or keeper of the county records became an independent office which after 1836 was held by the Lord Lieutenant of each county.

On Wikipedia - John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) [not knighted]
was an English philosopher. Locke is considered the first of the British empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory.
- His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, classical republicans, and contributors to liberal theory.

His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.[1] in his epic work called the Two Treaties, where he wrote extensively on the social contract
- Click Here for the full original text of Chapter 18 on tyranny
I'm share some passages to give you the drift

It starts with this famous quote: AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage.

A point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant: for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people,

The king binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as well the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly, by his oath at his coronation, so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge....
- Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests both against them and the commonwealth.

It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.

Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another....

For the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong.
..