The 'principle of consent to be governed"
is the most power tool devised by man, to effect a makeover without the use of physical and economic force. (Archibald Cox)

Denial of Consent is a very powerful tool, especially when I hold an iron clad claim to hold a void contract with society,

3-years after entering this document at my arraignment heaving, I'm about to face a Chief Justice with a Claim of Right
to challenge the Supremacy Act of 1559

I am undertaking a direct challenge to Manifest Destiny,
as defined in Romans 13.- to covert the Supremacy of God
to the Supremacy of God's Creation

Believe me, this has proven to be very dangerous from the moment it was pressed, everyone involved entered into extreme stupor.
The prophecy is that until the last day the spirit of stupor will be on them,
God will send a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a redemption,
(not a redeemer)

Appendix 1    
Notice of Understanding of Presenting Just Cause

• I claim the right to act on pursuing a path of peace, being competent to handle my own affairs, and,
  
  
• I claim the right as all do to defend myself; I reaffirm my willingness to follow instead a path of peace. - I’m compelled to promote my Freedom of Expression through the most effect means possible of promoting it. As II see it, as a candidate, I promote the same values as the Marijuana Party's vision of a Free Society,

• Which empowers me to enjoy the right and responsibility to attract the disenfranchised back into society, with the enjoyment of the concept of a Just Cause in a Freedom of Contract platform, and, that can be achieved simply with our political beliefs
  that we enjoy the law’s benefits, and, as I see it,
  To show the ultimate power of peaceful self-defense of civil disobedience we enjoy in Section-8 (3) CCC
  
  As I see it, the Crown wants to invite themselves to throw me in jail for the rest of my life because, as I see it, my thoughts are so organized that it constitutes to be the actions of organized crime,

• I need to make something perfectly clear,
  In the event that you don’t like what I’m doing, you were free not to vote for me, and I care, because my Just Cause is servicing the needs of those who really need the most help,

As clearly defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary. [DCL]
Ps in Canadian law, if a word exists in this dictionary, it's the only one that can be used in law

POLITICAL PARTY         1) an association, organization, or affiliation of voters- -whose prime purpose is to nominate and support of candidates at election time.
Ps- in the Canadian Elections Act, campaigning for the next elections can start the day after an election day.
2) A group of persons comprised in a political organization by which 
(I) Money or effort is expended: (ii) Money is solicited or received; for the purpose promoting, opposing, endorsing or supporting the platform of the group, of any recognized political party or  Candidate nominated at an election.

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT:   The parties to a contract are left by the court to use their own discretion and to make their own agreements.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION     Purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment.  That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false.
           -Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to the beliefs of his conscience
.
FREE SOCIETY:  A free society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental Freedoms, and I say this without reliance upon s-15 of the Charter. 
FREEDOM must surely must be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person

I claim that, as irrefutable, in this court case numbered:  150272-C3,

• My right to Rule under God's Law was abandoned by an ENTITY, to unlawfully compel me to enter into conflict;
• This trespassing every principle of the rule of Law by using word-craft to disguise the truth from the prima facia values of the average person you are supposed to represent and protect, and communicate with
  .
  Explain to me why I must be in our court operating with our rules that understands your need to talk in your language, that is not recognized and understood by my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  
  As I see it, the Charter recognizes French and English,
  and Legalize recognizes my Charteright, and,
• I simply refuse to believe how words in a foreign language can be reinterpreted to mean a trespass on my existing Charterights, because you want me to understand (stand-under) it’s definition,
  TO CREATE DISCORD, and an abandonment of the Rule of Law, and in a language that is foreign, and too confusing,
• Therefore you need to speak to me in my language, your behavior is clearly presenting me a message,
  
• This behavior shocks the conscience of the community and is so detrimental to the proper administration of justice, and threatening to my right to a fair trial, as to make me loose my faith in society,
   
  The abuse I endured builds the foundation of a Charter Challenge that has a national importance.

• The choice of Words must covet the rule of Law, and promote harmony and co-operation - I claim the right to equality for all as paramount was trespassed, because somehow you demand that, in order to protect your liability we need to talk in a language with 10 versions of a word that in most cases don't mean the same thing at all in English or French, and,
  
• I'm threatened for being treated like a foreigner in my own country,
  because I can't speak Legalize in spite of being fluent in both French and English, with a family ancestry that goes back to New France.
  
  For example: you really don't understand when: outlining my premise of: 'saving civilization, through love'
• Love cannot exist when this word is not 'recognized' and foreign to our language and paramount to our Justice.

Language serves the people, laws are written for people to understand,
not stand under in your language.

• Confusion and rage occurs when we won’t stand under,
  - when we really do understand the question.
• It's so Deceitful, you deserve to lose the PUBLIC TRUST,
  I don't Trust you because trust is giving you Credit,
• Because Peace and Harmony cannot exist without clearly understanding on every one without trickery and,
• We can't talk to you without a Lawyer and/or a Notary or face years of abuse to learn the hard way
  - that, a man with one eye is king of the blind, and
  blind Justice can be so easily perverted.
  
  It's a fundamental Charteright to communicate, in French and English, and be spoken to in French and English or a language that serves and understands God's rule the Law,
  
• My first arrest was very Political, I was nearly killed, by an out of uniform deputy Chief of Police, and charged with Possession for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis cookies, inside City Hall, while protesting criminal activities by city public officials, for denying me a license to open my Therapeutic Herb Coalition
  
• I felt trapped and being lead down another Godforsaken garden path for another beating, this time legal
  
  As to leave me with the perception of being in immediate peril with no alternative but to act in peaceful self-defense by filing with
  Geoff Plant, the Attorney General, of
  THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, my Notice With Prejudice, dated and received Sept 24th, 2004.Under the empowerment of Section 8(3) CCC

My foreboding was well founded –
within 5 minutes of posting this Notice with Prejudice
I’m charged on the commercial premise (thought) of
the Vancouver East Marijuana Party Compassion Club

• The police want to invite themselves into my ‘premise’
  to subvert a 'recognized' political party's platform,
• Thus subverting Democracy, itself, and as I see it:
  THEIR warrant to investigate is TREASONOUS
  
• Tell me: Who do you love?   Psychopaths cannot know love, and the Law does not recognize 'love'.
  - Do you love Canada and our Principles of Justice,
  or your power to subvert anything to get your way
  So be it, THEY did it and I had a plan to execute when I knew the timing was right. 
  I can't help it if I'm lucky

As I see it, I met every standard of 'perfection' in delivering this Notice
as recognized by the God's rule of Law

• My Notice with Prejudice was read into the Record and recognized by Judge Bagnall on Oct 6th, 2004, (1st day)
• Then, the issue of recognizing my desire to talk about my Notice in the Oct 20th was rejected, (2nd day)
• Then, again, the court refused to discuss the Notice on November 2nd  (3rd day), and - In light of the fact that YOU all serve the Attorney General’s bidding, and therefore under his Direction, that

I can come to no other conclusion that there is no love,
no compassion, just tricks of word-craft, and,

In recognizing the obvious nonfeasance of failure of an entity to comply by not recognizing this Notice, In spite of having power awarded to the enjoyment of
the Attorney General under sec-17 (1) of Police Act.

• Thus placing the entity of THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA in CONTEMPT of this offer to negotiate,
• Thus squandering an offer to talk, thus forfeiting a right to protest, under protection of the Law and Equity Act
  
• I hereby, claim the right to choose which option to follow:
  I choose option (1) NO ONE EVER has the right to drag me into your courts against my will.

Under full Commercial Protest, under the protection of property enjoyed in Sec-337 CCC
You have three calendar days to return everything or face indictments, and as I see it,
This is done with full respect of treating you as I am being treated, with equality as paramount.

Appendix-2  
Notice of Understanding of Liability on an entity of THE VANCOUVER POLICE DEPT
And /or the Crown’s Councils for the DOMINION OF CANADA for hiding their evidence,
by Presenting a compelling preponderance of evidence to show the abandonment of Just Cause, to investigate the Crimes committed that are self evident in my particulars,

• Which were to be used in my Criminal persecution, based on the standing statutes, and regulations: in
  
  THE POLICE ACT- Statement of core values 3
  This code is to interpreted as affirming that all police officers
  ( c ) Agree to uphold rights and freedoms guaranteed or protected by law
  DECEIT  7 -    For the purposes of section 4(1-C) a police officer commits the disciplinary default of deceit - if the police officer makes or signs a false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any official document or record

CORRUPT PRACTICES    9 - For the purposes of section 4(1-E) a police officer commits the disciplinary default of corrupt practices if

• The police officer agrees to be under pecuniary or other obligations to any person in a manner that might affect the proper performance of the duties of the police officer

From the Criminal Code of Canada    

DEFENCE WITH A CLAIM OF RIGHT
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceful possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending this possession
,
Even against a person entitled by law to possess it, if he uses no more force then necessary.
Ps. This is a very old law where the expression possession is 9/10ths of the law came from.

BREACH OF TRUST BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

122. Every public official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years,
Whether or Not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

OFFENCES RELATING TO AN AFFIDAVIT  - 138. Every one who
(Ps. that includes police officers doing covert investigations)
- Signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit- -and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing is so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administrate the oath or declaration. - - Is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

FALSE PRETENSE – 361.   A false pretence is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, the person knows that who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it.

-380.(1)  FRAUD    Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,
whether or not it is a false pretense within the meaning of this Act,
defrauds the public or a person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money, or valuable security or any service

• Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject matter is a testamentary instrument or of a subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars.

In law there are very few laws statutes that carry absolute liability and FRAUD is one of them that does
Absolute liability means:  there are no excuses for committing it, it's a judgment of facts that show whether you simply did the offence or not, in order to scare, especially public officials from breaking it.
            Mens rea – Latin for evil mind. To show a good argument of good intent to explain your activities (spin)
Being found guilty of FRAUD makes the victim entitled to full Commercial Damages. (NO IF'S ANDS OR BUTS)

But, I need to make it clear that we operate in an Agricultural Fiduciary Trust Agreement, And any award is to the entity of the Vancouver East Marijuana Party Compassion Club

IN PEACEFUL SELF DEFENCE - I’m pressing criminal charges against the following
(All be it not limited to)

I Claim to defend trespass that threatens my Just Cause to fear imminent danger by the police /enforcers,
BY trespassing the standard of gross malfeasance deceit and that shows unparalleled perversion,

• Under full Commercial Protest, the courts must recognize and protect my right to life and to peace, i an self-defense from persons who don’t recognize the word love, and my right to peace and Justice. - I claim the right to pursue a path of peace, with the right to enjoy full personal and Commercial protection, with the right to file a Claim for full Commercial liability in the event that a Public Official takes a path of conflict, in order to protect my agricultural judiciary responsibilities, to protect the Trust of my members from liability,
• Under full Commercial Protest: I demand the Attorney General of THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA to transfer to me the total Commercial value of Chief Constable Jamie Graham’s BOND, to be used as my Security Bond to Protect my Members and every one I love from the Financial burden of my untimely death.

• Twice, I've made a presentation to the courts, before very learned Judges, who were aware of the issue; - Once, during the election before Judge Bauman, in Vancouver
• Once before Judge Gulbransen in Abbotsford, where the record will show that
  Both Judges had no argument with my claim to having a valid 'recognized political party premise',
• I claim that in both cases, to having made the cornerstone of my defense: the Longley decision, and that under the Longley decision these learned Judges needed to advise me of my wrongdoing. 
• They did not, therefore
• I claim the right to call this action as one of judgment covered by absolute liability, and, that failure to do so is refusing to contest a valid 'recognized political party premise',made by a Candidate of an Officially recognized Party that is promoting its political platform.
  
• Therefore, I claim the right to be protected by the court's nonfeasance,
  as forfeiting the right to contest, and, that this activity establishes and recognizes my Claim of legitimacy of recognizing my Colour of Right,
• Because Judge Gulbransen recognized the colour of right to the police officers,
  thus recognizing my future ability to defend my colour of right, as a Claim of Right by the fact that we all are equal, by nonfeasance, through the protection of respect enjoyed under the Canadian Elections Act, the Law and Equity Act, PPSA, and by the fact that no court can later imply a restriction of a Right that is not directly restricted, Especially when the decision they are ruling on requires the issue to be considered must continue my path of non violence, and look deeply into protecting us from the danger that I face, and,
  
  I cannot do so without remaining outside the Consent to be Governed, until we agree to an understanding of Peace and Compassion to respect the /my ability to defend my Trust with any means available as outlined in section- 8(3) CCC, because our police /enforcers are so militant, and,

• I claim a right of holding anyone who joins my club the enjoyment of benefiting from peaceful social activism,
  
• To Defend this Right, we are Claiming the Right to enjoy trespassing in the Crown's Domain in Peace. - We Claim to enjoy this Right under full protection of section-39 - DEFENCE WITH CLAIM OF RIGHT – CCC
• We Claim the Right to peaceful possession of personal property, under our well-structured Claim of Right. For the benefit of all 3-parties of our fiduciary chattel agreement acting under this empowerment, with compassion, without having to force us to lower our standards to the use of violence. 
  ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.  John Lennon

Ps. my invitation does not allow you to stop paying taxes,
It does allow though to not pay taxes on your medicine, In order our protect this Right, as clearly outlined in our platform, 
- We lay the Claim of Right to peaceful self-defense by seeking protection to peaceful possession of personal property through sec-337 of the criminal code of Canada.
- We do this through the need to protect us from police /enforcers, who project a colour of authority

• We demand the right to peaceful co-existence with the police and public officials, and the courts. - We claim the right to protect our peaceful possession of personal property under sec-337 (CCC) -
  We demand the right to record the bond number of those who violate our Trust for the purposes of seeking full Commercial damages for the Offence.
  Under the provision of the original intent of this offence, which is to rule on the violation of this offence with the terms of absolute liability.

I Claim to have done so for honourable intent, to peaceful social protest in Judge Bengal's court on Oct. 6th.

• I did so, to literally, follow Thoreau's advice,  'the only way you can fix a sinking ship is to get off the ship'
• I want to fix the ship.     I did so for honourable intent, by offering a remedy based on respect and compassion of the plight of the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, in order to achieve a free society, and,
• I did so, with the persistence of the Biblical account of the old lady who went to the courts to lament for Justice.  I shamelessly subjected myself to be trespassed, in order to affect a greater good. 
• As I see it, this totally unorthodox, off the wall, blind faith strategy has reached it's objective, and
  
• In the event that this not enough spanking, I place a new Notice of Intent. 
• I have more totally unorthodox, paths of peace, I promise they get more punishing, and,
• The final conclusion will be the same: gave her Justice for no other reason than to shut her up. Give me Justice. I did so to effect genuine socioeconomic change, and did so to launch a Charter Challenge

Until then, we will operate outside the rules of statutes and laws that violate our right to enjoy benefiting from the medicine of our choice,
in order to live FREE FROM PROSECUTION, and protect us from an entity that shows no compassion to the oppressed, and operates with a structure that does not recognize 'love'

• In order to create calm and assurance; we come in peace, and offering a platform of co-operation. - I pledge to a path of peace and I demand the same respect from all public officials and servants In any municipal provincial federal or crown corporation

I claim the right, under full Commercial protest, in self-defense, to enjoy a method to pay for this Challenge. In order to show honourable intent, I'm presenting my Social Contract to promote harmony

• This is an offer to talk amicably to reach a mutual Agreement to achieve Peace & Just Cause, and,
• Failure of an entity to respond, within 21-days, means compliance to abide to this Peace offer, and,understand Peace through mutual respect, in order not to rush into a conflict, by honouring our TRUCE.

Appendix-3     Presentation of my Interim Social Contract to Protect Just Cause.

I claim to have no victims.  Everyone involved is seeking a path of peace (Section-7 Charteright)

• I claim to ameliorate the conditions of the disadvantaged, and, (Section-15 Charteright), and that cannabis is medicine, and, until the courts recognize this term, we are threatened, (S-15)
• I claim to operate within a realistic structure to protect Society from harm. (Section-12 Charteright)
• I claim the political and religious claim of Freedom of Expression to promote its benefits (S-1-2-3-7-11-15)

In the event that a member of the club violates this contact, we accept to be treated as trespassers. I claim of right that we (the club) are empowered to effect change through recognizing the legitimacy and strengthening the right of peaceful protest.  To endorse this statement I present Black’s 7th version of this word.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE  
A deliberate but non-violent act of lawbreaking to call attention to a particular law or set of laws of questionable legitimacy or morality
- Social protest and even civil disobedience serve the law’s need for growth.   Ideally, reform would come according to reason and justice, without self-help and disturbing, almost violent, forms of protest Still candor compels one here again to acknowledge the gap between the ideal and the reality.

• Short of the millennium, sharp changes in the law depend partly upon the stimulus of protest.

This was written in 1969 and just posted– It’s very strong evidence of a well-orchestrated plan.
Sharp changes in the law were not done by legislation: LEXICOGRAPHY
changing the definitions of words did this. - I claim that the social contract was broken by the Public Officials who sanctioned the changing of 1-word:

Black's OLDversion
- Colour of Office - The authority or power that is inherent in the office, esp. public office - Acts taken under the colour of an office are vested with, the authority entrusted to the office
.- Colore Officii -  (Latin for colour of office)   See colour of office

Black's NEW version which perverts the wording of 1000's of years
- Colore Officii -  (Latin) By colour of office.  Officer’s acts unauthorized by officer’s position, though done in form that purports that acts are done by reason of official duty and by virtue of office.  See also Colour of office.

• Colour of Office - Pretense of official right to do acts made by one who has no such right.  An act under colour of office is an act of an officer who claims authority to do the act by reason of his office when the office does not confer on him such authority. 

Definitions are nothing but someone's opinion.  BUT
Public Policy and Legal Dictionaries must be backed by adherence to protocol, and most importantly - case law in order to protect the social contract. 

• By definitions: 3 dictionaries in rapid succession cannot be justified by any historical standard.  
• So many definitions can only create discord and in so doing create total disenfranchising of the Public Trust.
• Only a psychopathic entity could defend the change of definition of Colore Officii,
  
• By assuming the authority to totally colour the definition of a Latin word
• The change of this 1-word started a well-crafted plan to subvert the social contract and democracy itself, by changing this word’s definition, the absolute liability of the colour of office became an issue of mens rea,
  
  The Social Contract is broken when the rules convert
  from one of serving the public good, to one of ruling over the public good. 
  It’s the cornerstone that sanctions a whole new order.
• Under the old order, public officials protected society by protecting the rights of the downtrodden. Case law served to create order
  
• Under the new order, a public official can accept the plight of the downtrodden to protect society.- Order can be orchestrated to alter and change Laws and Statutes, by changing a word’s meaning.
  
• Judges can Act like Politicians, and Politicians can Act like Judges
  – 2- against- 1- the Magna Carta is broken.
• I claim that the last anti-christ (Hitler) did similar manipulation of words prior to acting. -
  
  Behold the activity of the stealth presence of a
  Great Deceiver, to execute a covert Coup d'Etat.
  - To execute strategic assaults to establish the foundation of discord – for return of the next anti-christ. 
  We need to forgive 99.9 % of those who trespassed, for they know not what they do, in order to move on.
  The war on drugs, has psychopathic intent, and, I'm declaring a TRUCE, in order to promote a Free Society.

Until we can be protected from the wrongdoing of colore officii, there is no love, no contract to return

I Claim of Right to Prohibit every one to use a word's definition that subverts a Charteright, when there exists a definition of a word in an another version of a recognized dictionary that grants a member of the social contract to enjoy a Charter right.

• Under full Commercial Protest:  We refuse to be subject to deceit, to take away Charterights.
• Under full Commercial Protest:  We operate in Peace and demand the same from any Authority

• I Claim that the entity of 'Vancouver East Marijuana Party Compassion Club' could never be charged with social harm.

• Black.s 7th Social harm: An adverse effect on any social interest that is protected by law
  .  
• “If the phrase 'social harm' is used to include every invasion of any social interest which has been placed under the protection of the criminal sanction (whether by common law or statute), every crime may be said to involve, in addition to other requirements.
• (1) The happening of social harm and
• (2) The fact that the act of some person was the cause of the harm.
• By this definition, I claim that: I am operating a lawful compassion club, compassionately pursuing to reduce and heal the social harm of the criminality of cannabis, I am not 'the cause of the social harm'. I'm performing what our Supreme Courts have recognized as a need in society.
  
• The criminality of the drug is far more dangerous to society than the drug itself.  Judge Ledain

I recognize the fact that the Privy Council can protect us from seeing all the documentation but

We place a condition of returning to the table to discuss our return to consent to be governed, by showing me

• The documentations that is so powerful as to allow you to ignore the will of the people that was clearly represented in papers presented by THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, and/or, THE CANADIAN SENATE,
  
  The Supreme Court of Ontario correctly recognizes the need for medical access was a violation of our Chart rights, but then did an unconstitutional ruling
  that screwed us all, by creating the MMAR Program. 

• Section 52 of the Constitutions Act allows a Court to strike down whole laws or parts of laws that violate the Charter of Rights.  The Court simply does not have a right to fix a law, if the change alters the intent of the law
• It’s Unconstitutional and totally ineffective for the Courts to authorize the fixing of an unconstitutional law. 
• The power to do so was achieved by changing the definition of colore officii.
  
• When section-52 was written, it was held to the standard of absolute liability 
• When it was re-read, in a platform of mens rea, it allow.ed HC to follow an agenda and abuse a ruling.
  By turning the issue from one of fact to one of law, Health Canada could claim that they have done the best it can to administer a dangerous drug. That is harmful. 
• It falls on HC's mandate to fix what it thinks is necessary to address medical access for those in need. 
• 
  HC can claim that they can't alter the intent of Controlled Substance Act as a whole, or do anything, which can be counter to the intent of the Act, because that requires a new Act, so only the nearly dead qualify.
  
• By throwing out parts or the whole, the legislature must return with a constitutional statute,and
  
  If you need us to drag 10 thousand miserable cases created by the abuse of authority, we can. 
• The MMAR program is never supposed to float with its feet in cement.  It’s deceitful and fraudulent
• It’s totally irrelevant that we have a right to this medicine,
• The authorities have a duty to protect us from danger or harm.  Until these definitions are changed, there exists gross indifference to the disadvantaged.
• There is no justice,
  
• Until there is full recognition of medical access Rights to our satisfaction, we refuse to participate,
• We want to contribute to society and this is served by showing the fact that we must be heard,

* Please note a formal Charter Challenge is coming real soon, and will definitely contain more challenges,

* Please note a lot more charges will be filed as quickly as we can process them, and, In order to achieve a peaceful resolution we assert our final position, in order to move on in Peace:
We are prepared to forgive those who trespass against us as you forgive those who trespass against you.

Please forgive this extreme act
I did everything I could to avoid this ultimate tool of
civil disobedience.
I truly am driven by love for my Canada, and I’m doing this to protect every disadvantaged member of society, to achieve a 'Free Society' and fulfill our need to act in order to get a thousand years of peace.  Nothing is given to you, except your first breathe, every one has it in him to achieve God's good.

Appendix-4 - 
Like it or not the world looks to Canada as a beacon of hope       I'm presenting an opportunity to literally 'turn arms into plowshares'
            Please enter into peaceful negotiation, and we will find peace.
Every one has the power to say no,
Real empowerment is to be able to say 'yes'

The reason 'love' is not mentioned is simple: 
It cannot be defined.   Please help me.

My submission to the definition is
1)     Love is a rose and you better not pick it, it only grows when its on the vine, it's a hand full of thorns when you know you missed it, and you loose your love when you say the word mine,
(out of deep respect)
Accepting a burden for mutual respect of and for the Rule of Law.

• Please submit, and understand     
  2) Please submit, and understand.

Marc Boyer.
Just a FREE HUMAN who really cares,
All Rights Reserved, Non-Assumpsit, In Good Faith and Pure Trust, and,
Please forgive type-o’s, I’m not a Lawyer, and I prohibit anyone from taking anything out of the context of the whole.