Short Leave Demand – under section 337- CCC

1. 1.      Under a section 8 CCC claim of right, and on the solid ground that this appeals court must uphold the ‘Sovereign’s interests’ and uphold the principle of fundamental Justice in a Democratic society
2. 2.      That a short leave ruling is imperative, in order to recognize that:
   a.      when I’m upholding a claim of right that I hold a guarantee
   b.      To benefit and enjoy a fair electoral process, without prohibition of a media ban
   c.      In order to disseminate my political message, especially during this federal election
3. 3.      This court needs to recognize that without a short leave decision that I will be placed in imminent danger, from rogue police, who must object to my message, to uphold order under the economy
   a.      On the absolute solid ground that under their fraudulent Part-9 of the Police Act.
               i.      There is nothing to stop these rogue police from attacking me again
               ii.      On the grounds of belief that the rulings in my criminal case are so
                     convoluted as to be deliberately confusing and simply offers no protection 
                     to me, from the police.
               iii.      I need a short leave ruling that clarifies my flawed criminal court case ruling
                       1.      In order to protect this private individual’s right to a fair election
4. 4.       I seek remedy on my ruling in that it’s so terribly flawed, as to be irrelevant and harmful, whereas
   a.      On the surface it looks like I got a break, and that I can carry-on my lawless  
         ‘occupation’
               i.      But it ignores the obvious, that I deny consent to benefit from a ‘lawless
                    society’,
               ii.      Especially when the activity of my EDA of upholding the rule of law is so
                    compelling
                       1.      Which was expressly denied recognition in this criminal court case
                             ruling
   b.      This decision recognized that I ‘operated’ a compassion club under my EDA and
               i.      That I had a ‘store’ that sold fertilizer and hydroponics equipment in the front,
   c.      Which was a front for selling medical cannabis to people with medical need in the
         back
               i.      And it was recognized that I did not ‘operate’ with the strict restriction of the
                    MMAR
   d.      It recognized that my EDA upheld a belief that it had to make a profit from this ‘club’
               i.      Albeit at an arm’s length agreement from the party through Freedom of
                    Contract
   e.      I was found guilty and handed a suspended sentence with one year probation, and
               i.      To put it in Constitutional terms; this is total abandonment of normative order
                       1.      Which in today’s English means it doesn’t make any common sense
5. 5.      For example: I am prohibited from buying, possessing or selling fertilizer, and equipment
   a.      And I am to promptly notify the courts if I change my ‘employment’ or ‘occupation’.
6. 6.      I was charged on the GROUNDS OF BELIEF that my ‘commercial premise’ is an ‘activity’
   a.      But under this flawed decision, this ‘activity’ is now called an ‘occupation’,
7. 7.      In law, the difference between ‘activity’ and ‘occupation’ is like night and day,
   a.      Activities are in the domain of religions, politics, medicine, education, associations,
         etc,
   b.      Occupations are in the domain of the economy, warfare, commerce, industry,
          finance, etc,
               i.      Ps: and the press is now considered an ‘occupation’, it’s no longer an ‘activity’
8. 8.      All ‘occupations’ are covered under NAFTA, and this faceless entity serves the Economy
      Ps: The economy has always been a weapon of warfare to control foreign influence and
            power
   Now here’s where it gets perverted: in law, all crime is ‘recognized’ as being an ‘occupation’,
       a.      Somehow this means that we must both have the same criminal court system,
             under equity
       b.      Under this NAFTA agreement, both countries operate under the rule of law of
             commerce.
               i.      Which is ‘respondit superior’, except without a case law file of hundreds of
                    years,
               ii.      And that, because of NAFTA, their American criminal and civil law system
                    can every now and then, high-jacked both our criminal court and Supreme
                    Court systems
                   1.      Ps: If this was such a good idea, then why is it done in secret?
      c.      Which is why the judge quoted respondit superior in her decision in my criminal
            court case
               i.      Under this perverted system, it means that if an American opposes my lawful
                    activity, under the Elections Act, they can complain by calling what I do my
                    ‘occupation’
               ii.      Because the wording of my probation is so conflicting, I have no protection
                     from being victimized again by police, who must enforce our NAFTA
                      commerce standards   

This court must clarify this fundamentally flawed decision, on the absolute solid ground that
            9.      The principle of fundamental Justice in a Democratic society upholds this maxim:
                       a.      The law must serve and protect everyone, by protecting our Democratic society
                       b.      The law must uphold Democracy, especially after the election writ has dropped.

 I demand this court to clarify my flawed ruling in criminal court on Short Leave, on the grounds that
            I now enjoy the position of having to run for Office in this federal election, and   
      i.    In light of the fact that police have used deadly force against me twice in 2 years
     ii.    And that authorities keep denying me a right to a fair election means that
     c.    In self defense: sec 8 (3), I need a ruling that protects our Democratic values of Canada

1. 10.  Therefore, before entering this race of running for Office in this federal election,
   a.      I need protection from this flawed decision, under a short leave,
   b.      and that without this immediacy that I’m facing imminent danger from lawless rogue
         police
                  i.      Therefore the chances that I’ll have my right to a fair election violated again
                       are real 
2. 11.  This decision is so flawed that it seriously impairs my ability to lawfully run for election.  Let alone enjoy life liberty and pursuit of happiness, under Freedom of Association and Expression
   a.      On the grounds of belief that
                   i.      I have a ruling from this court, where I was found guilty for an ‘occupation’
                   ii.      But under the elections act, and our rule of law, this is a fundamentally
                         legal ‘activity’
3. 12.  No one can serve two masters: Somehow, I must be expected to serve two opposing rules of law
   a.      One that is about 900 years old, which seems to only be upheld in this appeals court
   b.      And this new perverted version of respondit superior that is now about 12 years old
   c.      I firmly believe: this fraudulent archetypal form is destroying our Canadian society
4. 13.  My need to disseminate this message to the people is greater than my perceived risk of harm, when I’m one court ruling away from declaring our NAFTA as unconstitutional and of no force and effect
   a.      My conscience cannot accept that my efforts to save our Nation with a message of
         Hope can be ignored and or quashed, because section-337 has never been
         considered in Canada
                   i.      When sec-8 (2) expressly denies you any such right, under a sec-337
                        demand
   b.      When I’m upholding our Constitutional guarantees to fix society quickly without use
         of force  
5. 14.  This court needs to address the reality that if this court chooses to quash my motion that
6. 15.  For all intents and purposes you’re vanquishing everyone in Canada to be slaves of the Economy
   a.      To ignore that section-337 CCC is as old as the Magna Carta itself, and
                   i.      It’s specifically there to uphold the Magna Carta itself, is unconscionable
7. 16.  To ignore that I’m invoking section-337, without recognizing the Constitutional power I hold
   a.      While not holding a person, while demanding to hold a person under the Elections
         Act
                   i.      Especially during an election, when done to correct the wrongdoing of
                        governance
   b.      In order to uphold a claim of right that demands the return of civilized life of the
         Magna Carta is so catastrophic to this Millennium that the consequences are
         unfathomable
8. 17.  What I am demanding is so cataclysmically pure, as to hold the potential to save the world, and
9. 18.  To ignore that two millennium ago this guarantee was placed there for exactly this reason is simply not a decision that is in my hands, and for the Love of God this decision is yours.
10. 19.  This private individual is humbled to be in a position to deliver the trust of the commonwealth but
    a.      I must express to who ever rules on this motion that they hold the trust of two
          Millennium
    b.      That I am but a messenger, and the deed to act must be pressed by this court 
11. 20.  I hereby demand this court to recognize a Short Leave Demand to rule within 3-days, In order to serve and protect my right to life liberty and a fair election process, in order to defend that Canada is a Nation founded on the principle of the Supremacy of God, and the rule of law
12. 22.  This charge for a Short Leave motion is simply to clarify a fundamentally flawed decision
    a.      By simple reviewing the existing transcripts of this case, under this court’s
          jurisdiction,
                    i.      Will grace this court with a way to expedite a short leave ruling in 3-days
                    ii.      After all the final arguments were recorded and the rulings are written
                        1.      so what on earth can not be done here
                    iii.      Especially in this court, where any judge can do anything on any given day,
                    iv.      I respectfully beg you to make the right choice, and to make a clear ruling
                    v.      In the meantime, I deny consent to be governed pending this decision.