public trust challenge

Before reading this presentation, get your head to think out of the box. You actually might have to accept that public authorities have been deceiving you, and that cannot be in the PUBLIC TRUST

What is the 1st thing to understand?
It's one of the cornerstones of Democracy and of law and order, and it's:

'What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied'. It gives Authority a huge advantage because they write the laws. Imagine, scrutinizing law to see what's not there, and then look at case law and you can see that historical events /judgments occur on what was not there.

A big truth, they want to us to skim over is THAT:
Democracy is a society that is ruled by consent of the governed.

This cornerstone of the law of Nature is called the PUBLIC TRUST.

That's right, we have exactly the system that we want, on the grounds that we don't object 'enough', and worse we keep voting them in. EveryONE in authority rules by assumption that this is how you want to be treated.
- The only reason there is so much abuse is
because we consent to it

What is the PUBLIC TRUST?

This is a very illusive question, because there's 'in practice'
and the 'in law' definition. In law, our public trust is
upheld in the Commonwealth's founding principle THAT

The PUBLIC TRUST is founded on upholding the Constitution, which is founded on the principle
of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law'.

The Canadaian rule of law is clearly defined: and founded in sec-133 of Canada's 1867 founding Constitution and is alaso founded under the Act of Supremacy of 1559.and they sinve 1982 when politicians pirated our Constitution with the Meech Lake Accord, they say that we are ruled under the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT of 1561
BUT:It's now not under God [or] IN OTHER WORDS
Authority is violating the PUBLIC TRUST when, they have no such right

What must be noted is that the rule of law in many countries like the USA and England is called undefined, because it's based on case law precedent, and the public trust evolves with time. They refer to it as a living tree.
IN OTHER WORDS: They're working on it and in theory case law is constantly improving this thing that is undefined
BUT The Art of War [written in 1000 BC] says you cannot defend what is not defined and what's happened is that bad case law has subverted the public's trust in being ruled by good governance

IN CANADA our founding fathers took a nobel position
We will define the ideal rule of law and the TRUST is based on striving to achieve its goal of a concept called PERFECTION.
That way we can hold our politicians /public Officials acccountable for straying from the ideal that the country was founded.on.

RULE OF LAW (DCL) Dictionary of Canadian law
A Fundamental principle of our Constitution, must mean at least 2 things. First, that the law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.
Second, the rule of law requires creation and maintenance ofan actual order of positive laws, which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized life.

My contentions is THAT: 'in practice' the fact is that our rule of law is well defined BUT this fact is totally ignored by our government, who have from our founding fathers on have always rule as if it's undefined.,

Our case law has horror story rulings like Loius Riel and we have had or rights eroded away because we do not object loud enough to this bullshit status

The betrayal of the PUBLIC TRUST has caused the total disenfranchisation of the average persons expectations of our governors, which has resulted in despair from not holding a unifying public trust,
..Our politicians defend that they are upholding a long standing tradition of how we are governed

The Art of War said it 3000 years ago
“you cannot defend what cannot be defined”,
and this lack of a clear definition to the PUBLIC TRUST, and ignorance of /to the rule of law, creates the erosion to the cornerstone of consent of the governed, creating the cause of DISCORD and CONFLICT
in our Democratic society, simply because the form is no longer Democratic

Recent public surveys show THAT: 2/3rds of Canadians have no trust in their government, and 1/3rd said they had no trust in the PRESS, and
the reason is in your face. Authority is violating the PUBLIC TRUST.

It's a revolting policy for Authority to define THE COLOUR OF OFFICE
as being "BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE ECONOMY"

The FASCIST policy of promoting a materialistic society will always fail, because under the law of Nature, Mankind prospers, when we create
the thrust of unifying under a common goal of bettering our common lot.

Promoting personal greed unites the rich against the poor

Personal greed cannot create a 'common frontier',
but it does create conflict, so we can unite against some 'common enemy' regretably that's our fellow citizens.
Without new frontiers, we run out of enemies over there,
so they (authority) create them internally. And
- THAT is exactly what's going with this War on Drugs
.
The CDSA is good for the ECONOMY, it creates lots of good paying jobs, like no war ever could, and gives AUTHORITY more power to control, in order to uphold a police state solution

- Sounds like a good plan if you're a psychopath.
Ps: The legal definition of psychopath: Void of love

The War on Drugs is in law Authority declaring a CIVIL WAR on the people This mess with no real law and order imposed solution was /is created by a new science <pharmacology>, and it happens to be the biggest benefactor, of this mess.

This mess needs a compassionate solution in order to heal a nation,
and the biggest contributor of this mess is created from the despair caused
by loosing faith in the social structure, which occur, under the law of Nature,
when authority abandons the creation and maintenance of
positive law under God's rule of law

How do you challenge the fact that Authority has abandoned the rule of law?

You do this by filing a CLAIM of RIGHT, and authority will tell you that it's never been recognized in Canadian law, and that's a crock of shite: You'll find lots of Canadian history on this matter,
it occurs where-ever authority gets too authoritative
-   To my knowledge the first Canadian claim of right was
a territorial land claim of Louis Riel, and they hung him for it.
Ps: A hundred years later it's starting to be called a mistake; he is a hero.
-    Every other claim of right in Canada has been recognized by smoke and mirrors: It's not recognize in Canada, but they respect that it was inherited from English common law, s-8 (2) CCC [they then repealed s-2]

for example: The Sikhs have a religious claim of right to carry a deadly weapon in public

- Political /social participation organizations have also been recognized, like the Orangemen, The Knight of Columbus, The Free Masons, Even UNION RIGHTS are not recognized in Candian law but recognised under S-8(2) CCC THEREFORE they are not caste as irrevocable Canadian values

- BUT, we can't forget Tommy Douglas, who
couldn't stop making claims of right for the PEOPLE.
BUT: Frankly every Institution he promoted is now under attack by the ECONOMY

Case law in Canada will defend vigorously that all political or social movements that were generated in Canada have all been treated with
the same total abandonment of the rule of law,
THIS IS COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT: and that we have a history of the PRESS praising them for being brutes. Therefore since we don't have a voice to object, they say arbitrary rule is sanctioned under the PUBLIC TRUST
They claim to uphold a long tradition as opposed to a good conscience

For example:
Communists, socialists, war protestors, civil rights defenders, etc AND
They are all routinely bashed, tormented, tortured, even killed
when AUTHORITY believes that this minority is making more noise than authority thinks they are allowed to make, for their numbers.

Ps: The reason we get the treatment we get is because we agree to be governed this way, and nothing is going to change - until we read what is not written in the law about who can make a CLAIM of RIGHT.

Who can make a CLAIM of RIGHT?
In Canadian law, it's not defined. Under common law, s-8(3) CCC
All 'freemen' hold an inalienable right (or claim of right) to challenge the government's power to rule arbitrarily rule over a true free man

The real problem for Authority is that they haven't seen a real free man in so long that they simply have no abilitity to deal with the matter before them

It's sad say BUT: They don't know how to handle a human being

The Nature of arbitrary rule is THAT:
' It' will inevitably digress to where authority must break it's own laws.

In reality - IT's PRE HISTORIC:
We, the people are constantly exercising claims of right, and
it's covered by Sec-39 CCC and
it's the oldest and most applied law in the land.
- DEFENSE WITH A CLAIM OF RIGHT

Ps: (after the CDSA, which is now 70% of all crime),
and frankly all violations under the CDSA are viewed as an erroneous claim of right to pursue personal liberty and happiness through drugs, which is deemed as harmful to society.

So by this definition: no one can ever make a CLAIM of RIGHT that challenges the PUBLIC TRUST on the drug issue.

Authority is right: NO ONE can challenge the public trust
but that just mean that it takes more than one to challenge it? THEREFORE
As prescribed by law, a politician can make a CLAIM of RIGHT
- By definition, under our rule of law, any Official of any recognized party is in law a 'private individual', who can protect minority beliefs in society; - as long as the claim upholds the greater good of attracting social and political participation, while complying with [s- 8 (3) CCC]
Obedience of existing law in the CCC overides any rule or regulation contained in a compromised Act like the CDSA

Ps: by definition under a political party's guarantee of Freedom of Expression I can protect our Charterights from the arbitrary abuse of tyrannical power,

It's an offense known to man, [s-8 (3) CCC]
for a private individual to uphold the rule of law as Supreme

Therefore: As a Marijuana Party candidate,
I claim the right to uphold compassion under a 'necessity defence'
(s-8 (3) CCC), in order to protect our abused Sec 15 Charterights
to a medical plant, under a Claim of Right (s-8 (1) CCC)

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld, under the Longley decision, THAT

'private individuals' could 'profit' from promoting our beliefs, and
THAT the Election Act actually encourages any party to defend the rights of the PEOPLE to benefit from society,

Therefore: I most definitely can CLAIM the RIGHT to protect the abused Supreme Court upheld Charterights, by forming a Compassion Club to protect our rights to all our members.

I'm making the 1st Official Political Party CLAIM of RIGHT in Canada, and

I couldn't have gotten here without Blair Longley's perseverance.
As CFO for the Rhino Party,
it took him 17-years to get an answer a yes or no, AND HE GOT A YES
He's now the new new leader of the Marijuana Party.

Authority treated him just like every other political rabble-rouser, and they were told; by the Supreme Court of Canada THAT
a Political Party can make a profit by promoting its beliefs no matter how ridiculous that appears at face value under our guarantee to Freedom of Expression,
- which extends to protecting beliefs the majority considers wrong or false”

I hold as irrefutable THAT one of these Democratic Rights of an Official Party is that

POLICE cannot bash us around like they do unofficial parties, or groups. I guarantee you that there isn't one member of the any of the other official parties that would agree to be bashed for upholding their beliefs

CATCH –22:   If police get away with this, THAT in law and in fact, they are agreeing to a court recognized right to be bashed as well, if they ever see the need to be passionate in defending their voters' Charterights.

How does a politician make a POLITICAL CLAIM of RIGHT?
That's easy; you take it. Politicians definitely don't ask permission,
and our history has a vivid example of this right:

Tommy Douglas never asked a court's approval before promoting or protecting co-op rights, or for Medicare, or any of his social benefit programs, and in fact, he was vigorously opposed by the arbitrary use of power for upholding his beliefs, but back then we actually had a PRESS with reporters who upheld the trust and the passion to protect the people.
- Ps: Omission of our PRESS to report on the descent of political minorities is called: legal INSANITY [Sec 15 CCC]

There is a lot of people who believe in Democracy
and we formed a Party to protect our beliefs THAT: Cannabis is a plant, and that Genesis clearly states that the Creator put all seed bearing plants on Earth for the benefit of mankind, and that seeking relief from pain and suffering from a seed bearing plant is an inalienable right of Mankind, and to this end our Charter, and the rule of law offers ample protection to protect our beliefs
Ps: By limiting our legal argument to this one point, means the courts must declare that God and the Bible are irrelevant in order to proceed with any further arguments, which means that it's impossible to prosecute, any private individual, when protecting a clear directive from the God under the rule of law

Under Section-11 of our Charter of Rights:
Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and,
the Crown must bear the burden of proof.

Ps: Everything I'm doing can be said in a way that makes the supplying of medicine look like criminal activity, and equally so, can be said in a way that is my duty to defend our abused Charterights through Constitution guarantees of an official political party.

If these activities of upholding medical access rights were being done by anyONE, it is fair to accept THAT:
An impartial judge should arbitrate with his opinion, on the merits of the case.    But, when a candidate, like me, is upholding the platform of my EDA,
then this decision becomes a political point of law ruling, therefore now,
It's the burden of the Crown of proving that our slant /presentation of the platform is illegal, and they simply have no Authority to do that

If AUTHORITY doesn't like what this opposing party does to get voter participation, then thats Democracy in action.
I defend the abused Charterights of the PEOPLE who vote for us

Furthermore under sec-11, we hold an EXPRESS right to seek remedy
through any lawful means, and, as an Official party Official, it's our interpretation of our beliefs that must be proven to hold mens rea
(criminal mind) Ps: Seeking relief from pain and suffering from
the fruit of a seed bearing plant is not a sin in any religion;

To further this point: Under Section-15 of
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
To quote the opening paragraph: “
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section-15 is to protect those groups who suffer social, political, and legal disadvantages in society.“
“Discrimination occurs where a person, because of personal characteristics, suffers disadvantages.”

UNDER SEC 15 of the Charter: As outlined in case law,
the necessity defense to uphold section-15 Charterights was what recognized the activity of Dr. Morgantilier; it is also, the defense of the gay rights,
and THAT also covered under a necessity defence s 8 (3) CCC.

We must protect our Sec 15 Charterights by recognizing them, in order to respect tolerance for the frailty of humanity. Both of these groups have rights to operate freely in society, in spite of livid objections from a much larger segment of society, who considered their behavior and beliefs to be offensive by most religions

In ORDER to protect our beliefs in the privacy of our home and at our Club, and hold protection to defend the peaceful possession of articles of our beliefs while trespassing on the Crown's domain (s-39 CCC)

In EQUITY, and in ORDER to protect minority beliefs of a political party, the law must GRACE a limited right to compassionate access to the medicine of our choice, under a Claim of Right to 'form' and operate a PRIVATE CLUB with rules that protect society, & also protect our members' Sec 15 Charterights under our GUARANTEE of Freedom of Association of an Official party,
to express our beliefs under the rule of law

Section-39 (1) CCC: DEFENCE WITH CLAIM OF RIGHT:
Everyone who in peaceful possession of personal property under
a claim of right, and everyone acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending this possession,
Section-39 (2): Anyone without a claim of right has no such right
or protection from criminal liability
This ancient law has always offered the solution to arbitrary rule, and graces basic freedoms to minority beliefs.
It's a cornerstone on how to maintain consent of the governed

I keep wandering out of just the 'cannabis issue' to a much bigger picture. That's because, my goal was never just about legalizing cannabis. The prohibition of a sacred plant is just a symptom of a much bigger problem of governance gone bad
- The 1st goal is recognizing a political /territorial CLAIM of RIGHT.
Because it's the first step to reform our political landscape through Peaceful means because it means introducing compassion, fairness, and maybe even love into our social /legal structure

Ps: S-8 CCC TERRITORIES ACT protects a Claim of Right
and it's the most powerful tool available in society to address arbitrary
use of power, and even redress Tyranny without a bloodbath.
There's a rich and glorious history of upholding claims of right in England, and by definition there's never been any authority in history that has ever welcomed one, because by definition, the very Nature of this 'thing' is ultimately to protect the citizens from tyranny and abuse of power.
In our commonwealth archetypal form, the courts are graced with
inordinate power to correct any wrongdoing of any elected Official.

The judges /courts are graced with inordinate power as UMPIRES
to protect the people from arbitrary use of power, and this trust of the courts is to uphold the common rule of law as Supreme, and this trust now lies with a real human being that hides behind the title of the Queen

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO FAITH AND SEIZING A MOMENT