THE DICEY DOCTRINE OF IRISH HOME RULE and
HOW IT AFFECTS CANADA under NAFTA

How it affects Canada is self evident when you read Sec 1 of the Charter.
“1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Sec 1 of the Charter is a guarantee to protect all our rights & Freedoms & it's there to defend these well-defined fundamental principles of law

a FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, [DCL] is defined in law as:
The values and principles essential to a free and democratic society embody and to name a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person – commitment to social equality – accommodation for a wide variety of beliefs – respect for cultural and group identity – faith in social & political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals & groups in society. The underlying values & principles of a free and democratic society are the genesis of the rights & freedoms guaranteed by the Charter & the ultimate standard against which a limit or freedom must be shown, despite its effects, to be reasonable & demonstrably justified [R v Oakes 1986]
All oath holders are bound to uphold these principles, AND every line of this definition protects our Federal Political Party in protecting our beliefs
To rule otherwise is a total destruction of Democracy itself and a direct violation of their oath

With such a foundation to protect the people’s values and Freedoms in 1986 thru Sec 1 of the Charter, MEANS it’s impossible to justify this police state that the Dicey Doctrine created, which Officially came into effect in 1989. AND it’s self evident that after 20 years of imposing one bad ruling after the other to protect the economy that in law it’s impossible for a public Official to protect the people, to the point where no man is born free & we are treated with no basic rights..
As John Locke laments: it's a total violation of a Higher Order the form simply degenerates to the point where we are all treating each other like slaves.

In Canada, in 1982 at the Meech Lake Accord, the Quebec delegation declared that they were not in accord & would separate from Canada if it was ratified. This happened in 1989 with the Secession Act of Quebec WHEN Quebec adopted its own rule of law and the rest of Canada adopted the Dicey Doctrine of an uncodified Constitution of the Supremacy of Parliament under 'rule by law' as opposed to under the rule of law.

Now the Dicey Doctrine is based on 2 fundamental presumptions that are true in England and absolutely false in Canada. England does not have a well-defined rule of law, it’s based on case law precedent; ours is very well-defined & protects the people. BUT more important is that England doesn't have a written Constitution
- BUT Canada’s rule of law is part of our well-defined Constitution, which clearly protects this concept of 'equal protection' under the law, as opposed to 'equal treatment' of the law under the Dicey Doctrine. The end result is the creation of a legal process that no longer protects the people from abuse of Parliament, or a Legislature or a City from writing bad & unconstitutional laws.

NOW casting an uncodified Constitution in England can be called a lawful excuse,
because it does not have a written Constitution. but this uncodified policy contained the eugenics policy of Colonial Rule
- IN LAW it's all about what Thomas Payne in Common Sense 1776 was complaining about which is to be governed by published laws.
In Canada we are charged under the CC and it's not published
[In Constitutional law we are to be ruled under the Criminal Code of Canada [CCC]
[Not the CC, of where? the CC is there to rob all our protected Charter rights]
English case law [unwritten rule of law] protected Loyal subjects’ rights and The Dicey Doctrine dealt with how to handle disloyal subjects
- Ireland wanted out of English rule, which England called an irreversible contract, in order to protect the Economy & in order to support this claim, disloyal subjects became less than human beings, & would be given equal treatment of the law, as opposed to equal protection under the law. AND
Frankly its intent is to protect the ECONOMY by profiting from the people with oppressive laws

It needs to be noted that all of Dicey’s conclusions are based on Lord Bracton [1250]. His Doctrine supports that the King must be above the law, & the Dicey Doctrine converted this to Parliament must be above the law.
- In Canada every Premier & the Prime Minister & their entire Cabinet are now natural persons who are above the law, just like Henry 8th.
Originally: the Dicey Doctrine was not intended to be used in England; it was a might is right solution to a crumbling Empire.

In Canada’s case, The Dicey Doctrine has no foundation in law at all and no excuse in law to be enforced [period]
Frankly the Dicey Doctrine is there BECAUSE we have a new Official POLICY in Canada of By the people for the ECONOMY and case law since then has reflected this new treatment of not being rule under the rule of law but under rule by law, and any Authority can pass any bad law they want, under Sec 33 of the Charter, which permits them to literally enforce all those laws that are not yet past, in order to accommodate the future

After, 25 years of case law entrenching this POLICY has resulted in a situation where every political Official - every public Official,- every judicial oath holder - every police Officer are expected in law to be in direct violation of their oaths in order to do their job
- So their solution was to make all oaths meaningless in the 1998 POLICE ACT

My documentation & common law sense says that there has to be a Peaceful solution to this mess, and the only real solution is for the BAR to change their oaths to uphold Constitutional law AND in order to do this, the BAR must raise the BAR, which is exactly what my Act of Supremacy offers.
Failure to comply with an offer to uphold the new Covenant means you have every intention of destroying the Creation AND
my best advice is that it’s utter insanity to deny God’s grace. [Sec 15 CCC]
The promise is that evil doers will scatter when the message is revealed

- BOTTOM LINE
We Canadians don’t have a revolting nature & we'd forgive the BAR’s trespasses, if they initiated the news that it was changing its oath back to uphold Constitutional law in order to adopt the new Covenant.
- Luke 11 says the people of the south will rise in indignation & that’s also the fulfillment of Romans 10 of angering a nation with no understanding.

Both of these prophecies say those who repent at my teachings will win & evil does will scatter. We all go to Paradise as promised AND it’s all conditional on wanting to surrender to a total change of mindset.
- This METANOIA happens in the blink of an eye & Jeremiah 31’s promise is delivered. So what's the problem? Lacking in faith?
How can you fear death when the offer holds the promise of immortality?
Once the New Covenant is revealed there will be no more need for sacrifice.
Luke 21 says some who stand for righteousness will be killed but they are promised Heaven, & all those who resist by the sword will die by the sword, so evil is destroyed

The BAR is being called upon to fulfill a Peaceful solution to this mess,
as to 1Tim 3, the Bar is being called to deliver the message because there simply is no such thing as any clergy who wants salvation unless they are flattered as being the chosen oath holders who have nothing to repent for.
[As to Mat 18] They are all worse than pagans for worshipping statues & preaching myths & lies to children who are saved from their miserable fate,
- To refuse to spread the message of righteousness is simply pure evil
- The best advice for the law society on how to judge this matter internally can be found in 1Tim 5, which I admit is one of the most construed passages of the New Testament. - All oath holders are widows of a paper queen.
- These widows of a pervert paper queen have everything to do with Romans 7-on,
AND I’m delivering everything promised, and every curse if you reject God’s grace,
and it’s obviously not me dispensing Judgment or punishment. My job is to test oath holders.

- I can only offer good first fruit AND Jesus will deliver God's judgment as God commands
[as to 1Cor15] We must go thru a very brief tribulation, where the BAR brings the
dead to life thru human means, which is exactly what my Act of Supremacy offers.
By changing the BAR's oath, these dead-things called CORPORATIONS would start serving mankind. Imagine: this would change everything CORPORATIONS are just paper dragons, [as to 1Cor15] By rebelling against this
dead thing, manking will see the triumphant return of Jesus who saves us all
[as to Luke 21] It's called a witnessing by everyone else - it's the greatest show on earth

As to Eccl. 8 & 9 - A good heart will know when & how to act
I simply hold the Faith that someone out there has to be doing it for the Love that I’m delivering, & frankly I may be very wrong in believing that any oath holder has a conscience
If no one can rise to the moment then as to 2Thes 2 behold the power of a delusion sent by God for delighting in wickedness by refusing to love the truth & so will be destroyed.
If no one can see it, I pity you. If no one can break the fear of loosing a rebellion then I will condemn you
THE CHOSEN MUST CHOOSE.