If you can read this MOTION without expressing rage
Then you must be a lawyer or a judge
This
age old truth comes to mind:
freedom was never cheap
Motion #1
- Under section 337, I hereby
demand to return my person to a lawful society
 1)
This motion is to demand this court
to recognized and stand under section-337 cCC
a. In order to recognize that the reason this law is on
the books is to correct any wrongdoing of any or all public
Officials, under a demand process.
i. Never in the history of this law has any authority
wanted this law applied.
b. This law has a rich history of upholding lots of section-8
territorial demands, and
i. In this case, it's being used to recognize
my 'political claim of right' that is ii Pressed by an
Electoral District Association (EDA) of a recognized party.
c. Just because it's never
been done in Canadian history is no excuse for ignoring the
fact that it upholds the principle of fundamental Justice in
a Democratic society. [Sec 1 Charter]
d. S-8 (2) CCC says that
when there's no case law in Canada, then we must use English
case law,
- where there are hundreds of case law applications to choose,
e. I charge that the entire criminal
court system is guilty of criminal possession of my immortal
'soul' and with malfeasance has enslaved me for being an 'individual',
f. Which occurred
by refusing to accept that they have no Jurisdiction at all
over any 'citizen' who removes his 'person' from society, to
uphold a claim of right |
 2)
The entire entity of the criminal court system is assuming that
they have a right to arrest, charge, prosecute, find me guilty,
confiscate property, without even considering let alone recognizing
my claim of right, and place judgment on my 'corporate sole'
to pay a debt,
a. To ignore any obligation to
respect the sanctity of my immortal 'soul’' is ignorance,
b. Ignorance in no excuse
in law s-8 (3) especially when I'm upholding Democracy
 3)
There are so many examples of FAILURE OF AN
ENTITY TO COMPLY under sec-19 of the Police Act, in my case
that I challenge the very existence of this Entity.
- 4)
I hold as irrefutable that everything that happened after November
8th, 2004, when I filed my Confirmation
of Denial of Consent to be Governed in a horrific
indictment of how perverted Part-9 of the Police Act is to the
principle of Justice in a Democratic society
a. This
new Part-9 tof the 1998 BC POLICE ACT otally re-writes
section-8 CCC, and abandons every defense and excuse in common
law that we the people have enjoyed for centuries.
b. Part-9 is a shameless coup
d'Etat by police to turn this county into a police state
-
 5)
This judge abandoned her Oath of allegiance in order
to uphold the Oath to the Bar, by ignoring the principle of
colore officii and that she must uphold the Sovereign's
interest,
a. It was done to covet
a perverted interpretation of the rule of law of the USA,
b. When She directly quoted
'respondit
superior', as the foundation for her decision,
i. This occurred by insisting
that: “We all must obey the rule of law”
ii. This quote simply does not
exist in our 1867 Constitutional rule of law.
Under our commonwealth rule of law, we all can stand under
a valid claim of right
I
hold as irrefutable that when this Judge refuses to
consider the compelling argument that I presented in my final
argument of there being a 'unique interpretation of the rule
of law', under the Elections Act, means she is defrauding me
from benefiting from the founding principle of Canada
Canada is founded on the principle of the Supremacy of God and
the rule of law To rule that Canada's rule of law is irrelevant,
in her jurisdiction is a breach of her Oath of Office.
- 6)
I hold as absolute that this Failure of an Entity to Comply
ignored a cornerstone of all commonwealth societies,
which is to maintain governance with consent of the individual,
a. INDIVIDUAL, at it's religious
root is our 'indivisible duo',
(1-person under 1-soul)
b. [DCL definition] FREEDOM
means that no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary
to the beliefs of his conscience. No person
can ever tell a/their conscience what to do or ignore it
- 7)
I hold as irrefutable that at my arraignment
hearing, on Nov. 8th 2004, after entering my 'Confirmation
of Denial of Consent to be Governed' into the court record
that
a. Constitutionally, my case file
should have gone directly to the Supreme Court, b.
And, had they done this, then I would have had to proceed with
civilization,
i. Which is to take a criminal matter to a civil court,
and had they done so
ii. Then, I would have had to file a ‘request’ to
recognize a claim of right
iii. But they did not do this, they
resorted to TREASON in order to
iv. Protect and defend an expressly
forbidden criminal state of upholding a totally
fraudulent claim of right that is now called Part-9
of the Police Act
1.
On the absolute solid ground that there is no legislation to
uphold
the enforcement of any provision of Part-9 of the Police Act
- 8)
The solemn Oath of the BAR is to never pervert the law,
and it's absolutely irrefutable that the entire criminal court
system is upholding a criminally perverted criminal court system,
a. They simply can find no way
to stop the perversion without facing any liability,
b. So they persecute me,
for challenging their illegality to save all their own asses
- 9)
So, instead of upholding the Constitution, they send me to a
Forensic Psych Test
, and added that I’m to face a mental evaluation, while
indefinitely confined in a mental institute
-a. I refused to comply with this order and
nullified it by signing it under duress.
- 10)
I swear that the very next day, my chest plate was snapped in
two, by badge #1331,
- a. who just happens
to be the file coordinator of my criminal file, who never
does patrol
b. who just happened to be sent
on a trespass complaint placed by the vicar of the Roman
Catholic Archdioceses that arose from me seeking religious asylum,
to protect my conscience from being defiled by authorities who
might want to kill me
c. No incident report was done
because I swear that I did not do any resisting.
- 11)
I swear when I filed a complaint with Violent Crimes Division
of the RCMP, the next day - I
was told that this was not in their jurisdiction, and that I
had to file a complaint with the Police Complaints Commissioner,
and to go back to the VPD for 'help'
.
- 12)
I swear that when I returned to court to tell the judge of the
incident of my snapped chest,
She totally ignored my complaint, and sent me for another Forensic
Psych Test. This time without a 30-day
evaluation attached, and threatened me with the fact that
if I did not comply that I would be sent to jail and forced
to go.
- 13)
So I went to a 4-5 hour Forensic Psych test, and went to court
with the results.
a. I presented the judge with
a report from this test that said that I was eccentric - b. -
That I was able to communicate with council, which means everyone
in this court - c. - That I had an unusual
and intriguing defense.
- To be specific:
- I was not insane and I legally defend myself
in a court of law
- So they ignored that I had properly filed my
denial of consent to be governed
They refused to consider anything about the incident of my broken
chest plate
- 14)
They entered a plea of not guilty under protest,
and scheduled court dates. Had they been able to find
me crazy, then I would have been a ward of this court,
To totally ignore the Constitutional guarantees that I was invoking
is Treason.
 [DCL]
- FREE SOCIETY: A free
society is one, which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment
of fundamental freedom, and I say this without reliance upon
s-15 of the Charter. Freedom must surely
be founded with respect for the inherent dignity & the inviolable
rights of the human person
I am defending section-15 Charterights, and upholding
the sanctity of our rule of law
- 15)
Society is not a prison and you are not my wardens.
The fundamental fact of a free society is that any politician
has an 'express guarantee' to challenge it, and if we don't
really have that right, then we the people are neither free
nor are we in a viable society in its true Essence.
The function of any court is to uphold the fundamental dignity
of man,
In
self-defense - s-8 (3) I demand this court to recognize
my political asylum, which I filed last April in Supreme Court,
or have the dignity of my immortal soul recognized to challenge
my political right to protect the principle of fundamental Justice
in a Democratic society
- 16)
Let it be understood that I have suffered the most indignant
act imaginable
by this criminal court system that upholds a police state, which
was perpetrated on 4 separate occasions;
a. Once when I was originally
charged, on my first set of bogus charges, on Jan 5th - b. -
Once for filing denial of consent to be governed at my arraignment
hearing, and
c. Twice, after my confirmation
hearing recognized my lawful challenge to society, while not
holding a person, but holding a ‘private individual’
while running as a candidate during election, for protesting
that they have no legal right to arrest me.
Constitutionally this is so bad it's pathetic.
it's court imposition of slavery
d. In English case law there are
numerous examples for abandoning your 'person' when making a
section 8 (1) challenge, - Louis Riel is our case law
example I did it to protect me from being victimized
by authority for pressing a challenge
- 17)
It's perverted and an unconscionable violation of the
most basic fundamental of freedoms,
a To repeatedly challenge my sanity, because Authorities
don't like what I say
b They don't want to face the consequences of the BAR
having perverted the law
c. So, they need to find me insane, in order to make me
a ward of the Crown,
d This way, they can literally de'file' my thoughts,
and my conscience from society,
e In order to legally ignore everything I say, because
I am insane, not them
- 18)
In order to prevent me from challenging the 'principle of Justice
in a Democratic society'
a. to in effect force me
to face imminent peril, from perverts: to quote George Orwell
i. “Speaking the truth in
a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.”
- 19)
For the purposes of showing some grace, I will stop
now from throwing more stones at the criminal court system,
on the grounds that there are so many abuses that it's pathetic,
and If this isn't enough perversion to shock the conscience
of the Public Trust
then just caste me off as a political refugee to protect me
from society.
- I was not born in this mess and I have every right
to defend my Canada
- I have suffered incredible hardship and imminent death
from police
- And I have no protection from further assaults
from this lawless society
 The
solution to this motion is caste in stone in our Constitution,
and this solution is written into our Constitutional
rule of law:
·
A
Fundamental principle of our Constitution must mean at least two
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 of an actual order of positive laws,
which preserves and embodies the more general principle
of normative order.
o
Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized
life.
- 20)
It's a Constitutional guarantee to return to normative order
a. I demand that the Bar must
uphold a very old promise to return to civilized life,
b. Either by intent or through fate, the promise
of the millennium is thrusted upon us.
- 21)
Under a section-337 CCC: I hereby demand the return to
'civilized life'
a. In law 'civilized life' means going to
civil court first, and then summarily going to criminal court
if it's common criminal matters.
- It's a lot like 'restorative justice'
There are so many definitions to normative order that it's an
open book
I seek to return to the ideal of the Magna Carta definition
of normative order - With one precious
exception: we don't face the Queen, and/or face the Pope
i. We face our Charter of Rights
and Freedoms
ii. And you can say that I'm a
dreamer, but I'm not the only one, (Lennon)
I'm
well aware that this court cannot do this, but it's well within
this court's mandate
e. Under a section 11-d Charteright: to appoint an
impartial 3- man tribunal
Under
s- 337, I demand you to appoint an open and transparent tribunal
f. To initiate an
open and public discussion of fulfilling the trust of commonwealth,
which has always been to establish the framework of our civilized
society in order to return to the ideals of
the Magna Carta in our Canadian society
- 22)
In the meantime, I seek court protection: I'm under some
kind of publication ban, and I demand a must
publish order from this court, in order to uphold the
public trust that a valid claim of right has been entered into
the court record that demands public scrutiny
|