The BAR swears to never pervert the law,
LEXICOGRAPHY is in law an addiction
- It's abuse is called "legal insanity"

Presenting the Smoking Gun
to the Downfall of Democracy:

Notice of acknowledgement.  Throughout this text I’m using italicized text to designate direct quotes from Nixon's Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, from Direct Action, Civil Disobedience, and the Constitution, written in 1967.  It's one of the definitive legal papers on the subject matter that I'm presently undertaking.

Fundamental evil acts have been done,
and praise your God for disclosing this evil before it's way too late.  In the event that we want to carry on in peace, we all have to accept peace as the only alternative.   Frankly those who conspired this plot did so with the intent to bring on the millennium, which is a legal term for a time of great social and political upheaval.

This presentation is exposing a recent change to the basic building block of Socrates' social model that upholds the entire concept of a free and Democratic government, by the free will of the people, for the people.
Democracy stands on a platform of Hope.  Past generations have made a mess of things, ours no less then our fathers.  The hope of mankind is always that a new generation may begin to make a new world quicker. The pen is mightier than any sword - you can't underestimate the power of words.  

Democracy is a platform to uphold peace with words, and A strategic assault of redefining a few key words
has resulted in the total abandonment the basic 3000-year old concept of Democracy itself.  It was done with stealth and it took well over a century to reach the initial stages of implementation. 
Full 'mutual compliance' will require a few more steps to reach 'perfection' (a legal term), but once in place, which without any objections will take a few more years, which will result in nothing short of fulfilling
Biblical prophecy of a perverted NEW WORLD ORDER. 

THE GOLDEN RULE: We live in a Democracy, and I am certain that some will welcome the news of this change, as a positive influence in society, because it finally eliminates the hypocrisy of our administration and government system.  I'm personally revolted by the truth I'm about to press. 
But I'm doing a lot more than writing about it.  

I opened this account with the Barristers Accredited Registry (the BAR), and they can't close the account until they answer to the charges that I'm now presenting, which I have been pressing before the courts, since last November. 

I have no legal representation, and by law, absolutely no lawyer could ever press this argument.  In fact, what got me to the BC Supreme Court of Appeals level so quickly was challenging the fact that the standing judge at the BC Supreme Court level could not rule on my case, because he refused to declare who he loved, since he could not uphold his Oath to the Bar, and uphold his Oath of Office, in the case that I was bringing before him. 
For some reason I'm still under a publication ban. 

A major blow to the demise of Democracy can be traced to the changing of one-word's definition: Colore Officii or in English Colour of Office. 
The vast majority of people will have never heard of this word, and this reality was intentional.   Lawyers and politicians hide their Achilles heel well.   Changing the definition of this one-word can be called the smoking gun that destroyed Democracy itself.  It's totally irrelevant whether the definition change was pro-active or re-active to the truth.  It's the willingness of Public Officials to implement this new definition that is the crime of the Millennium.

Basic Legal Premise: NAFTA established a new WORLD ORDER
in law, it's defined as By the PEOPLE for the ECONOMY
Socrates founded our Democratic structures in Greece, of this policy that strive for an ideal to produce a balance in society of achieving peace & harmony with words, by striving for an administration structure that functions by consent to be governed in a free society, by the people, & for the people. 
This foundation was caste on 3 maxims, AND they called it Colore Officii
which is this trust of Office to uphold "by the people for the people".

1) Justice:                         We are all innocent until proven guilty.
2) Freedom:                      What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied,
3) Order: All laws rules apply to those who govern as well as those who are governed. 

It was rightfully called a giant evolutionary leap in how society can evolve with just a better notion
To guarantee that those who govern followed all 3 maxims,
- all Public Officials were sworn to uphold to a concept called: Colore officii, which for about the last 4-millennium (up til it radically changed in 1991
has meant, BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE

Our society changed by just perverting 1-well place word:
Black's 5th Legal Law Dictionary's definition,
clearly presents the negative historical slant of this maxim,
To violate it is the worst offense any public official can commit
BECAUSE: Color of Office is the legal term for 'Official Government policy'
IN LAW: to challenge the Official Government policy is treasonous.
Every court ruling - every Public Official must uphold the Official Government policy of "By the people for the economy' - THE ENTIRE DIRECTION OF SOCIETY IS PERVERTED BY 1-WORD

Perverting the definition of 1-word totally destroyed Freedom in less than 20 years
Everything politicians do and all court decisions make sense when they must uphold a policy of:
Colore Officii: By color of office.  Officer's acts unauthorized by officer's position, though done by form that purports that acts are done by reason of official duty and by virtue of office. See colour of office
Colour of Office:
Pretense of right to do acts made by someone who has no such right. 
- An act of color of office is an act of an office that claims authority to do the act
by reason of his office when the office does not confer on him such authority.
IN LAW: They are telling us the way it is. it's just that the truth is that it's totally unconstitutionality
- It is all based on a tradition of being ruled by scoundrels

To guarantee this maxim's effectiveness,
colore officii was held to the standard of 'absolute liability',
which means: there are no excuses, not even a good reason for acting outside this authority, and no authority can violate the maxim of 'by the people for the people'.   The penalty for violating this rule has always been harsh.
BUT as you can see - everything changes by changing the meaning of the root word that protects the peoples rights - 1 word changes everything

The whole concept of Public accountability starts with this word. 

This word upholds the BAR's fiduciary TRUST of: no ONE can serve two-Masters, which upholds the entire concept of Public Officials never acting out of their jurisdiction.  Democratic societies function under a contract with words, and this one-word upholds the entire concept of the PUBLIC TRUST of Public Officials being accountable to the people
After over 3,000 years, the foundation of Democracy changed in the USA, in Black's 7th Published 1991

Color of Office: The authority or power that is inherent in an office especially a public office.  Acts a taken under a color of an office are vested with, or appear to be vested with, the authority entrusted to that office.

There are two major components to this definition change,
it no longer holds any Public Official to absolute liability
; in other words- a good excuse for breaking this rule is all any Public Official need to not face liability for having made a wrong decision. 
But the true real change to the definition is the use of the word 'vested', and especially the term 'appear to be vested with', are truly frightening. 
- 'Vesting' means a coat of arms has been pressed, in other words:

Someone in Authority is pressing a CLAIM of RIGHT, and, in law, until it has not gone through the steps of 'perfection' because the definition says "appear to be vested with under express color".
all the historical 'legal colorful terms' returned in Black's 7th (in other words they are active in law, again)

Furthermore, coincidently also in 1991, we in Canada published our DCL
Our 1st Canadian Law Dictionary,
and it was hailed as a great day for Canada.  

We passed a law saying that if a word had a definition in our dictionary that varied from any other definition, then, only this definition applied.  Sounds like a good thing.  This call for a Canadian Dictionary caused some serious debate as to which definition would rule.  The BAR clearly debated the change of this one-word before publishing it, as made evident in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 5th edition, 1986.

Colour of Office is always taken in the worst part, and signifies an act of evil done by the countenance of an Officer, and it bears a dissembling face of the right of the Office, whereas the Office is but a veil to the falsehood, and the thing is ground in Vice, and the Office is a shadow to it.  But 'by reason of Office, and by virtue of Office are taken always in the best part.
2) Express Colour is no longer necessary in any pleading, as to Common Law Procedure Act 1852. [This was done because the Charter rejected it as irrelevant
- BECAUSE: The BAR now had a full Claim of Right]

THEN: Our enlightened PARLIAMENT legislated this new definition of Colore Officii in 1991.
Colore Officii: Latin for colour of office. See DURESS
Colour of Office:  Pretense of authority to carry out an act for which the actor has no such authority
Duress: Threats to another's property, threats of physical violence or economic duress, which includes a contract. See ECONOMY
     
(Ps: Democracy is dead UNDER THIS NEW WORD ORDER)
it's now - BY THE POPLE FOR THE ECONOMY UNDER DURESS -

By the people for the people is history.  - Just connect the (.)
Colore Officii: See duress. See economy.
This is the legal definition of Economy: The acquisition, at the lowest cost and at the appropriate time, of financial, human and physical resources in appropriate quantity and quality.  (Ps: they are insane)
- NAFTA was implemented that same year & if the timing of these word transformations has any meaning at all, it's self-evident THAT:
A CLAIM of RIGHT has been enacted, in the United States, (and not so)
Coincidently: Canadian Public Officials are, since then, upholding the ECONOMY as the PUBLIC TRUST & it's all because they perverted 1 word

This definition establishes THE NEW WORLD ORDER of:
BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE ECONOMY.
Ps:  Europe is making its own economic union, and we're expanding ours to full mutual compliance, 'perfection' under the GOLDEN RULE
[he who holds the gold makes the rules AKA tyranny]
The intent of every law and regulation changes, when you change ORDER with this 1 -word.

With an insanely simplistic legal argument, all Public Officials
now serve a fiduciary trust of upholding the ECONOMY, and
since the ECONOMY is the first-word in ORDER, it becomes the last-word
in any decision.  We, the people, hardly notice any change at all,
because it really was the implied status quo for a few generations.  

Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm) that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best of your ability execute the offices of Barrister and Solicitor, that you will not promote suits upon frivolous pretences, that you will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things conduct yourself truly and with integrity, that you will uphold the Sovereign's interest and that of your fellow citizens according to the laws of Canada and this Province?

As to a document provided by the BAR.  [quote]
“ Some benchers were against changing the oath of office. 
It was said that the oath taken by lawyers should only be changed if the oath taken by the judges were changed accordingly.  It was also said that, while there may be good reasons to swear allegiance to the Queen, it may be inappropriate in a multicultural society of the 1990s.” The change of oath was carried by a show of hands, as 'friendly amendments', with only one dissenter; Mr. Trotter asked to be recorded as opposed.
[in law they needed one dissenter and because it was unanimous means we will never know who voted on it. BUT since then this is the new oath to the BAR

The new BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS OATH reads as follows:
Ps; it's not called an oath of allegiance anymore.
Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm) that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best of your ability execute the offices of Barrister and Solicitor, that you will not promote suits upon frivolous pretences, that you will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things conduct yourself truly and with integrity; and that you will uphold the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of all persons according to the laws of Canada, and of this Province?

Before starting, I need to point out that the full impact of the changes to one phase could fill a library. 
This change of the Oath could not have even been a consideration under the old fiduciary trust, on the absolute solid grounds that the good reasons behind upholding the Sovereign's interest is that it's a lot more than this concept than serving the superficial entity called the Queen; it's permitting slavery

It's total abandonment of 'Everything Pure and True'
<no lawyer on either side of the bench, has to uphold Canada's best interest,> it nullifies the last 'vestige' of 'by the people for the people'.  
- Before continuing, I need to point out that nothing had to change, with the new definition.  The crime of the millennium is the extent of the changes that have been enacted by this new definition. 
The implications of changing 'citizens' to 'persons' is pure perversion,
no 1 with a conscience can justify the change of this word in any oath

Since then, there's been wholesale changes thru baby steps,
in virtually every jurisdiction in the country, and everyone of them is necessary to reach perfection in serving by the people for the economy.
In law it's REDRESSING liability after a CLAIM of RIGHT has been enacted.
Until this is in place, the liability is great. 

On the absolute solid grounds THAT: 
Until the bureaucracy is in place to isolate every Public Official's Office, under a new ORDER, there lies a huge potential liability of having one of these Officials being involved in a case of violating
A cornerstone of law "no ONE can serve two Masters"
How great is this liability? The BAR breaks a Covenant caste back since King Richard & the Magna Carta  

Serving 2-masters is as basic as looking at the definition of the rule of law.   Replacing 'Sovereign's interest with 'the rule of law' can be called nothing less than the on-going collective act of perverts.  We the people uphold the rule of law that is caste in the Magna Carta, and our Canadian Constitution (1867), in Sec 133,

GOD'S RULE OF LAW: A fundamental cornerstone of our Canadian Constitution must mean two things:
1st, that the law is Supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power. 
2nd, 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. Law & order are indispensable elements of civilized life.

The BAR no longer upholds the Sovereign's interest:
who upholds the rule of law of our Constitution - they now uphold the banksters by uphold Black's USA Law definition of: RULE OF LAW
1) A substantive legal principle <under rule of law known as
respondent superior, the employer is answerable for the wrongs committed by an employee in the course of the employment.>
2) The supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power <citizen's must obey the rule of law> Shakespeare penned it well, when the BAR tried it last time: - Kill all lawyers and politicians
-They did it this time to impose Irish Home Rule on Canada

Now, it truly regrets me to have to tell you, it gets a lot worse. 
These lawyers and politicians truly are anticipating that maintaining consent of the people to be governed may prove to be difficult, while implementing this new ORDER, so they are very busy implementing sweeping new

POLICE REFORM - in the 1998 POLICE ACT by definition this was
to fully implement a POLICE STATE CONTROL under Irish Home Rule

Basic Legal Premise: Denial of Consent to be governed is the only civilized tool left to our disposal

The USA developed under Roman rule of law model.  
The whole concept of Manifest Destiny of the United States is simply not a Democratic process, and the American Democratic model is a meld of these two concepts.  The phrase 'a substantial legal Principle' of this rule of law definition is upheld by 3-centuries of case precedents,

This history upholds values that are well penned by Archibald Cox, (1967)
The simple fact is that our constitutional system works and our society is free is because officials, individuals, and the community realize that the rule of law depends upon voluntary compliance.  Such is the true meaning of government by consent to be governed.  Voluntary compliance is essential to the rule of law. 
When authority is no longer responsive to the people, civil disobedience arises. 

The core evil to civil disobedience is that it weakens the bonds of law & compels the state to resort to power.

Law is a human instrument, constructed by men to meet men's needs; it must justify itself by what it does for men in meeting their needs, including their ethical judgments and moral aspirations of law.  

Our Constitution is founded upon seven or eight centuries of continuous concern for the institutions and aspirations, for the processes, standards, ideals, and
sense of right and justice, that make for our free and civilized society organized with a minimum of force and a maximum of reason. 
Ours is a free society because the law that binds all men equally, the governed as well as the governed, the judges as well as the litigants.

This is the cornerstone of the PUBLIC TRUST of all nations. 
Archibald Cox clearly clearly expresses an ideal BUT in practice, It's just empty words
NOW How can the law get so off track when this was cast as the standard?
Just enlist the law enforcers by giving them CABINET STATUS
In Canada - This was done thru the 1998 POLICE ACT which was ratified by 9 provinces, AND Quebec formally opted out under the 1998 Secession Act
Our BAR only adopted Black's rule of law definition, in other words, there was no case law to uphold the new order of things no interpretation, of this status which paved the way to total abuse of process that 2 rules of law are generating
. 
Total abandonment of normative order is occurring. Exhibit A: 
In 1998 The BC Police Act was enacted by Legislation
(with an experiment to authorize implementation of an alternate Part-9 (namely): The BC Police Act Reform White Paper & Draft Police Complaints Act, AND its purpose is to bring Irish Home Rule in BC thru the back door, because it's so unconstitutional

THIS 2003 INTERNAL REPORT stands out as being really incriminating Ever since this Report, The Commissioner is calling for urgent reform of 'what's now called Part-9' of the Police Act. [he's complaining that the Legislation is not past for it to be officially legal]

[quote]“He 'recognizes' -The legislature wisely contemplated the excellent work of Judge Oppal on the new Part-9 could not be 'frozen in time', So under s-50 the power to 'engage in research' was conferred onto this Commissioner, by a special committee of the Legislature, for a 3-year trial period,

The Special Committee's recommendations were tabled
(within the 3- year mandate) and these recommendations are based on the 2-1/2 years of experience in applying Part-9. 
[In other words this report is about The Police Complaints Commissioner complaining that the unlegislated section of the Police Act is operating as if it is legislated law and the 3-years are over, and his mandate was based on the forecast that the Legislation necessary to actually support this Act would be enacted on time. So, He's actually telling them that he's acting like it's his job to enforce this old policy until told directly not to stop. What he's recommending is another Order in Council to cover another 3-years to improve on the experiment
AND he then explains why?
[quote] The 3-year mandate fully expired in 2002, and the
necessary legislation has never been passed. (Oops)
The reason the order died on the table is the Commissioner of Police Complaints was denied his removal from his oath, because of a ruling by Judge Oppal, who reiterated before the Special Committee May 10, 2002: “His position is that:  the 'Officer of Legislature status' was necessary given the nature of his Office.” BC law states THAT: An officer of the legislature cannot be removed, from liability of his Oath to the Sovereign's interest, except by a public process, through a public vote within the Legislative Assembly - Even the best administration cannot transcend the problems of inadequate Legislation”What is at fault is the legislation itself.  It's unclear, ambiguous and does not provide adequate remedies to the Office of the Police Complaint Commission to ensure effective 'civilian oversight'
HE's SAYING:IT'S NOT THEIR CRIMINALITY: It's the laws fault for not being able to do it
PLEASE NOTE: THIS REPORT IS TO OUTLINE OATH OF OFFICE WILL NOT PERMIT

: The first fundamental Principle of Part-9 - is Civilian Oversight
POLICY: [PRE AMBLE] There is an inextricable link between Democracy,
the rule of law and police accountability. ”1] Police must be authorized to do things that would be illegal for ordinary citizens,” and - “2] Police must not be unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.”

'Civilian Oversight' has nothing to do with citizens being able to 'oversee' the police - [it's about unaccountability to citizens ]
- Up til now, the express colour of police was: Police can break the law under exceptional circumstances Changing can to must is in law is VESTING a CLAIM of RIGHT to totally re-write Sec 8 CCC
- [By specifying MUST means the offensive officer is never to blame]
Sec-8 (3) is where all the common laws that protect the PEOPLE from AUTHORITY exist - All common law defenses and excuses of we the people are destroyed by an experiment to see if irish Home Rule will work in Canada

Which side are our police on? Without legislation, after 2002, their own record say the legislature is not accountable for the Commissioner's mandate Ignorance is no excuse Sec-8 (3)
Especially when it comes to upholding the Canadian Constitution

This means until the Commissioner is told differently The Legislature is not accountable for a Commissioner who is enforcing CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT [period]

This means:  Anyone after 2002, anyone who fails to get remedy from this Commissioner after charging a police officer with committing crimes is not placing the BC Legislature in any liability. This means no one is accountable for upholding both the rule of law of our Constitution, because Black's Rule of Law of business is Supreme  .NOW the reason this was made possible is
Under both rules of law: Wally Oppal as Supreme Court Justice of BC is accountable for all the wrongs of those below him, and to the PEOPLE.  
Or is it transferred to our new Attorney General Wally Oppal, who crafted Part-9, who is accountable? He approved his own experiment [no body is accountable by design]

All they need now is to create a crisis and invoke a temporary order in council to finalize Part-9. Frankly it's totally irrelevant who is responsible for it. I have lots of open accounts with the BAR,

I shamelessly entrapped THIS POLICE STATE, and more than once,
I might add, to have to answer to charges of committing a wide variety of crimes, just to make sure that I was able to effect genuine socioeconomic change, in ORDER to stop this perversion before it's too late. 
The BAR cannot close an account without addressing the properly filed, & 'recognize' documentation that I have inserted in my case files. 

I'm shamelessly PRESSING with the ultimate tool of civil obedience: Section 337 CCC, and combining it with the ultimate tool of civil disobedience, which is Denial of Consent to be Governed, and taking my chances on: DEMANDING the Queen of the Commonwealth to return my PERSON and in this way I'll call them my people who are not my people

As Archibald Cox points out when they went over the top with Nixon's initiatives
It resulted where we see all too clearly THAT:
- One cost we pay for all civil disobedience is the heavy damage it does to the principle of government by consent of the governed a principle which is the surest guarantee of individual liberty devised by man and also the source of the wildest opportunities men have ever enjoyed to remake society without repeated violence in contests for physical and economic power.

Possibly there are a few rare occasions on which the goal would be so important as to outweigh the price which a challenge to the rule of law extracts from a community.  The argument is probably strongest where one refuses to do what he believes is a direct moral wrong to others.
Social protest and even civil disobedience serve the law's need for growth.  Short of the millennium sharp changes in the law depend partially on the stimulus of protest.
Ps: Sharp changes in the law occurred by changing the definition
of a few words to precipitate the millennium

In a case where a man is willing to repair the damage to the process of constitutionalism, in order to guarantee liberty, and
a chance of repeated change without force, by imposing his views upon society, then this man must be either peculiarly self-confident or extremely shortsighted.

I want to do a lot of damage to the BAR's civil disobedience,
in the most civilized way possible,
- The Queen of England has never vanquished a subject.  All 'benchers' of the Supreme Courts of Appeals, swears an Oath to uphold the Queen of England's interests, therefore to my knowledge, No SCC Judge has no other choice but to comply with this 337-DEMAND on the absolute solid ground THAT The reason for sec-337 CCC is in the law is for exactly function of abandoning Colonial rule

My DEMAND in law is to abandon Colonial rule,
in ORDER to return to civilized life under 1-definition of the rule of law,
Because The fundamental flaw to the Charter or to Irish Rule or The Patriot Act is that nobody has the right to subject any citizen to ask for God given right ... If you ask for it, means a judge can rule that you don't get it, what in law is inalienable,

My DEMAND under Sec 337 CCC in pressed in order is to recognize my CLAIM of RIGHT to form an Association that upholds this Principle:
Canada as a Sovereign Nation founded on recognizing that God's Creation and the rule of law are Supreme

AND Frankly under this New World Order this Petition In ORDER to benefit the Economy: Through the acquisition, at the lowest cost and at the appropriate time, of financial, human and physical resources in appropriate quantity and quality, by uniting under a CLAIM of RIGHT to protect fix /repair and especially to improve on God's CREATION to better Mankind  it creates a form of currency that never rots

I'll take my chances that more than one person just might want to
subscribe / join this sociopolitical Association
- Every theologian and every historian has predicted
that the demise of our democratic system as inevitable,
I'm not the cause of the demise; I'm just a messenger with a solution to start the world in a new sustainable direction quickly. It really is the solution to an Isaiah 40 prophecy of creating a form of currency that would never rot
Democracy stands on a platform of Hope. 

Past generations have made a mess of things, ours no less then our fathers. 
The hope of mankind is always that a new generation may begin to make a new world quicker.