Canada, A Country Without A Constitution, An Invalid Queen and Defacto Government- A Collection of Works By Eldon Warman
Charlemange- The first Emperor of the official "Holy Roman Empire"
FROM WHENCE COMETH
THE “QUEEN OF CANADA”?
- 2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen (Victoria) extend also to the heirs and successors of Her majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1893, the Imperial Parliament passed the Statutes Revision Act wherein Section 2 of the BNA Act, 1867 was repealed.
Queen Victoria died in 1901. What legal provision allowed any heirs and successors to Queen Victoria to assume the position of Monarch over Canada?
If none can be found, that would mean that those Monarchs of Great Britain, since Edward VII, have been “pretenders, frauds and hoaxes” in assuming the office of executive head over Canada and Canadians.
Although many acknowledge the Queen of Great Britain acting as Queen of Canada as only being an honourary position, Canadians are being prosecuted, jailed and fined in the name of this Queen under admiralty courts where those acting in official status hide behind the apron of this false Queen of Canada, and circumvent the Common Law and Common Law Rights of Canadians.
LAW IN CANADA
The existing situation in Canadian law is as follows: law comes in five varieties, English [Roman Municipal Law] Common Law (falsely called “The Law of The Land”), Constitutional Law, Statutory Law, Admiralty Law (”The Law of The Sea”, mainly used in international trade and Military Law), and Napoleonic Civil Law (derived from Roman Civil Law and used in Quebec). The so called common law used in Canadian courts is based upon “precedent” or previous judicial decisions, and all too commonly, upon a judge’s opinion of law according to his own political bias. More recently, Canadian judges have been using the American/Roman system of viewing anyone who objects to, or defies government ‘policy’ as being re-classed as a ‘disobedient slave’, and then deprives the accused of ‘due process of law’ in any trial or hearing. The American ‘Fugitive Slave Act 1850 says in Section 6: “In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;”.
The imposition of this slave status, which the Pope of 1300 called ’subject to’ have been implemented in the English system since probably the 17th or 18th century by imposing a false or ‘legal fiction’ name on people where the family name is made paramount, and the given names are made reference names to the family/surname. It is a subtle change that very few people have become aware even after these many years of deception by the legal community. Logic will tell you that family names were derived as reference names to given or baptismal names.
I would make the point here that ‘person’, when applied to an adult human, means a role or status in society [Roman term meaning 'the crew of a ship, or make-believe ship]. Crewmembers on a ship at sea are NOT ‘free will humans’. The captain of the ship, or head honcho of a corporate body, is the supreme authority over the ‘crewmembers’. ‘natural person’ just means a human reduced in status to ‘galley slave’ or ‘plantation slave’.
Precedent law is an aberration of the real Common Law, as only politically appointed judges and influential lawyers can ascertain what the supposed law might be. This system results only in a parasitic industry for the benefit of the legal professions and has been the art form of tyrants throughout history . The Criminal Code states in section 19: “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offense is not an excuse for committing that offense.” How could anyone be reasonably held accountable for knowing laws and interpretations of laws buried in some dusty book in the law library?
THE COMMON LAWThe Common Law of England, Roman Municipal Law, is the basis for our contract and tort laws and procedures (Tort being the maintenance of basic granted privileges). A contract is a legal instrument to document the exchange of property. The terms of a contract constitute the sole obligations to its makers. Contract litigation may only deal with terms of the contract.It is a sad fact of history that the English people allowed the Papacy and England’s imported Royalty to deprive them of their access to the glorious benefits of God’s Law, as they had it in the Anglo-Saxon Common Law system. Although the English Royalty acted slowly in their imposition of a form of ’ship’s administration’ law system, a system designed for a dictatorship, and allowed the people to have some of the benefits of the former Anglo-Saxon system, those ‘privileges’ have, especially in recent times’ been revoked as the means of enforcement becomes more technecally feasable to impose. Here are some of the benefits we no longer enjoy, at least certainly not on a regular basis:Five basic factors in the use of the Saxon Common Law are:
1. The law pertains only to free will full liability men and women existing under their own proper name. (No fictitious names, no corporations, no inanimate things given person status.)
2. Only actual, or materially provable damages are recoverable.
3. A Grand Jury must decide whether a man/woman is to be temporarily ‘outlawed’ so that they can be held in custody for other than a short time period, or tried in a court proceeding.
4. Habeas Corpus is a right, not to be suspended by a servant government.
5. Law enforcement is by Petit Jury, not by government (police power). Note: Do not confuse execution of law with enforcement of law.
In current practice, most people believe that judicial procedure operates in Common Law and judges are supposedly bound by Common Law, the Constitution, precedents from higher courts and Rules of Court. It is assumed that Judicial procedure would adjudicate Common Law and Constitutional Law violations. In the Middle Ages, the English Chancery Court (courts run by black robed judges appointed by the Crown) originated a judicial procedure called “equity”. Equity was supposed to insert the influence and idea of “mercy” into law; as, the Common Law was straightforward and harsh. Is this a straightforward excuse? Obviously not! All ‘Rules of Court’ state: “Equity prevails over law.” Equity is equalization of the exchange in a contract - a balance of the scales. So, if the judge can swing the case over to ‘violation of the terms of a contract’, the law is removed from consideration in the judgement. Then. the judge bases his decision on ‘good order and discipline relative to policy of the ship’ rather than going strictly by ship’s rules. Justice no longer becomes the overruling principle.
In the years since, this concept has evolved into giving judges license to interpret and even change or make law. Courts adjudicating contract disputes operate in “Equity”; and in the Rules of Court, equity prevails over law. This allows the judge to determine that terms of a contract prevail over rights situations in a contract issue. What we actually have are commercial courts within a limited liability Roman Person - a corporation called the Crown. The courts first determine or set up a trap of assumption whereby the accused is judged to be a corporate member of the corporate Crown. When that is established, the court then becomes a corporate administrative court wherein there are NO rights recognized or assured.
Contract litigation is based upon the Common Law precept of “like for like” (quid pro quo). The right to make contract is part of the basic or primary right of “property”; as, the right to own, use and sell or give away one’s property is the substance of property rights. Law cannot interfere with the lawful enjoyment of basic or primary rights. A minor contract can be witnessed as a verbal contract. Any major contract must be at least written and signed by concerned parties. The three primary factors arising out of “like for like” or “quid pro quo” regarding a contract - showing the Common Law “crime” linked, should that factor not be present in the exchange of property are:
- (1.) voluntary - extortion;
(2) full disclosure of terms and conditions - fraud;
(3.) an exchange of physical objects, money, labour or intellectual skill of an agreed to equal value - theft.
The terms extortion, fraud and theft each have sub defined crimes depending on what is involved as property.
By Eldon Warman
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.