NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT

by andrew on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 | No Comments

This notice was notarized and served by registered post on 2010 July 29:

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

Whereas it is my understanding Australia/Australian Continent/Any Variations Thereof is a common law jurisdiction, and,

Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which

has been given the force of law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,

Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in Australia is a representative one, and,

Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,

Whereas it is my understanding all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution Act, and,

Whereas it is my understanding Section 32 of the Constitution Act limits it to members and employees of government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding those who have a SIN (Social Insurance Number) are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s SIN, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse and, that this factual truth is expressed in Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and,

Whereas it is my understanding people in Canada have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,

Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,

Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,

Whereas I, Andrew Neil of the Paterson Family/Clan am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,

Whereas, it is my understanding that I have the right to claim up to 160 acres, settle on, and own, existing un-surveyed Crown Land and lawfully claim it as mine, without limitation, and grant myself full Allodial Title to it, and,

Whereas as I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and not a child, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,

Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any TOLL road is in fact and actuality, public property to which I have the right of use and access free of charge and,

Whereas I claim the right to collect a pension if I have paid into it and claim that said right is not affected if I abandon my Social Insurance Number, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the British Columbia Securities Commission create no obligation or dishonor if ignored, and,

Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,

Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,

Whereas permanent estoppel by acquiescence thereby, and henceforth, prohibiting any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time,

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, Andrew Neil of the Paterson Family/Clan, a Freeman-on the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter .

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my community’s standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right as mentioned in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and, who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

Furthermore, I claim full custody of my child, xxxxx xxxx of the Paterson Family/Clan as her lawful father, being flesh and blood of my flesh and blood and that my child is not a ward of the state but is in my joint care with my lawful wife Helena Eva of the Poll Family/Clan to protect, provide and nurture in all the things required for a safe and happy upbringing until my child reaches the age of majority of eighteen years, whereas and when she can make her own claim of right.

Furthermore, I claim the right to properly educate my child, xxxxx xxxx of the Paterson Family/Clan and shall make all the choices thereof within and without the states interference until she reaches the age of majority of eighteen years, whereas and when she may claim the right to decide for herself.

Furthermore, I claim the bonds and/or securities that were created at birth for my child under the de facto Corporate/Corporation name of XXXXX XXXX XXXXX and all profits and/or dividends they have produced or will produce retroactive to her birth certificate creation date until she reaches the age of majority of eighteen years whereas and whereupon she may claim the right to have the aforesaid profits and/or quarterly dividends directed to herself upon her own claim of right.

Furthermore, I claim the right to possess, cultivate or use medicinally any plant of the genus Cannabis or any other naturally occurring substance to my healthful benefit and also, I claim the right to the maximum state of health that I can achieve and maintain and the right to cultivate, process, store, use or consume any naturally occurring substance or derivations thereof to that purpose, including, but not exclusively limited to, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, pro-biotics, phyto-nutrients, herbs and homeopathic remedies, the right to uncontaminated air, uncontaminated water, uncontaminated nutrition, and the right to use the resources of any form of healer or therapist for the purpose of achieving and maintaining my health and in doing so, indemnify them of any form of statutory limitation.

Furthermore, I claim to exercise my right to possess unregistered, unlicensed firearms and ammunition and to use the same for target practice at a range or hunting for food or for protection of my flesh and blood body and all those under my immediate care and further swear, under oath never to open fire on another human unless as a last resort to protect human life and property.

Furthermore, I claim that the courts in Canada and British Columbia are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are, in fact, in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land, I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use my ALL CAPS fictitious corporate name ANDREW NEIL PATERSON under the Rule of Necessity when and where I, Andrew Neil of the Paterson Family/Clan, deem it necessary to conduct any and all commerce to provide the basic requirements of life for my flesh and blood body and those in my care. I reserve the right to be the sole Sovereign being of making that decision, when and where I deem it necessary; I place permanent and irrevocable estoppel on any joinder with ANDREW NEIL PATERSON and Andrew Neil of the Paterson Family/Clan under the Rule of Necessity and my use thereof to my betterment and existence.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent. Orders of any kind, from any agent representing any and all corporations shall be Billed on a “per order” basis at the starting rate of TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS per order and shall increase at a rate of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS per subsequent order; i.e First order shall be billed at TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, second order shall be billed at THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS etc. and so forth and shall be directed to the liable Agent making any and all such orders under their Full Commercial Liability.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then, interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

Furthermore, I claim the right to amend this Notice of Intent and Understanding and Claim of Right at any time in the future with Addendums at my own discretion when and where I deem it necessary for the betterment of my existence and those in my immediate care; All Rights Reserved.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence prohibiting the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self Freeman-on-the-Land, Andrew Neil of the Paterson Family/Clan.

Place of claim of right: Town of Lake Cowichan, British Columbia, Canada

Dated: ___29th of July, 2010_______________

Claimant: __________________________________

Andrew-Neil: Paterson

Notary Public: __________________________________

Patricia Thomson

Use of a Notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and? does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of a ?foreign jurisdiction.

ROBERT MENARD LETTER TO EZRA LEVANT OF SUN MEDIA REGARDING DEAN CLIFFORD, IMPRISONED WITHOUT TRIAL IN CANADA

By Robert Menard, 

Letter to Ezra Levant, Sun Media, CC to Andrew Swan.
Dear Ezra, I would like to bring to your attention a situation which I personally find extraordinarily shocking and which seems to fly in the face of due process and basic justice in this country. It also seems to highlight a lack of Ministerial oversight coupled with bureaucratic abuse of trust.
I am providing you with a letter I received concerning a friend of mine, who last Friday was charged with 7 different counts, including assaulting a peace officer. These stemmed from what appears to be a targeted traffic stop, itself very questionable, as the reason for the stop was spinning out and recovering control of a pick up truck, on an icy PRIVATE lane joining two PRIVATE parking lots. The arrest was affected by Dean being jumped from behind.
The arrest itself and the reason for it would itself be quite a story, however it gets far more interesting. Even though six of the seven charges brought against him have been dropped, and the last will most certainly be as well, Dean was recently transferred to a maximum security facility and due to only his political beliefs, deemed a threat to staff and inmates. Please bear in mind he has done nothing to justify their claim he is a threat to anyone, nor is he a flight risk. He is a hard working contractor who is a vocal advocate for government accountability and social change.
It frightens me to think that anyone would be transferred to a maximum security prison due only to their political beliefs. Beliefs incidentally that espouse operating lawfully and peacefully within the system to affect positive social change. If these people feel that such beliefs are sufficient reason for transferring to a MS facility, it is only a matter of time before they feel it is also sufficient reason to incarcerate in the first place.
The other abuse of process seems to be that while the original charge of resisting arrest has been withdrawn, likely due to it being an unlawful assault to begin with, Dean's struggle with the officer during that unlawful arrest is being called an assault on an officer.
Many people have maligned the Freemen and many more have bought into the propaganda presented by the government and media concerning them. The reality is however the movement is a result of growing government abuse and corruption, which is starting to affect the average Canadian to such a degree that they are seeking remedy. The Freemen are the ones who are standing on guard for thee, and they do it by demanding government accountability to the law.
When anyone is jailed merely for their misrepresented political beliefs we are all in grave danger. And these things do not happen over night, they start with people being transferred to a maximum security facility from regular minimum security holding for their political beliefs. That is the camel's nose in the tent of freedom.
I ask you look past what may be political perspective you do not share, and see our common interest in a free country, where people are not punished for their political beliefs.
Sincerely,
Robert Menard
(Ezra may be contacted at ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca ) Please take time to write him a short letter.

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com 

WANT TO HELP CANADIAN POLITICAL PRISONER DEAN CLIFFORD?

C'mon guys, lets get stuck in and support a bloke who is being imprisoned in maximum security for his political beliefs. In a so-called free country. Without a trial. 
Just copy, paste and send the letter below to the address below.  Then share this url with your mates and we can get this innocent fella out of prison. Simple.
BY Robert: Menard
Letter to Andrew Swan
By Adrien Nicholson in Free Dean Clifford (Files) · Edit Doc
Dear folks, this is a call to arms, with said arms being your pens, keyboards and phones. Please do what you can.

Minister's OfficePhone: 204-945-3728

Fax: 204-945-2517Email: minjus@leg.gov.mb.caOmbudsman: ombudsman@ombudsman.mb.caTO: ANDREW SWANMinister of JusticeManitoba

Dear Andrew Swan,

I bring to your immediate attention the abuse of power and perversion of procedure my friend Dean Clifford is being subjected to in a prison for which you are responsible. You may or may not be aware of the situation; it may even be due to your own orders. If not however, then I am sure you will find the situation as shocking and offensive to the conscience as do those who will likely be contacting your office personally to express their displeasure.

I am sure you would agree that it would deeply offend and shock the public conscience to hear that a Canadian was imprisoned for no other reason then their political beliefs, regardless of how inconvenienced those in power were by those beliefs. This is especially true if said beliefs are based upon love, compassion, truth, and exercised in a lawful and peaceful manner. And although Dean is not charged with having certain political beliefs, it does appear he was targeted for them, and then assaulted and arrested by an RCMP Officer. The entire incident itself will likely not withstand proper scrutiny, and would likely reveal an over zealous officer.

Now Dean has been in prison since Friday night, and a YOUTUBE video made to inform the public about his arrest garnered over 3000 views in 24 hours. During this time there has been no indication from him that he is a threat to others or staff, or a flight risk. He has been held in Winnipeg Remand Centre and was in good spirits, sure he would be released according to due process and proper procedure.

Dean is a Freeman, and as such holds political views which many in positions of authority label as anti-government. To be brutally honest, we are not anti-government, but pro-good-government. It is due to these beliefs and only these beliefs that he has now been transferred to a maximum security facility. On your own organizations website I found the following:

Role of Maximum Security Institutions

Maximum security institutions provide long-term incarceration for offenders who have a higher probability of attempting to escape and who present a greater threat to the safety of the public.

Dean is in no way a threat to the public, nor a flight risk at all. To the contrary he is looking forward to his day in court. His being transferred to a maximum security prison is nothing less than an unlawful and inappropriate punishment for his beliefs. When asked why he was being transferred, one of the staff apparently let it slip it was due to him being deemed a threat to the staff and prisoners FOR HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS.

If someone's political beliefs are justification for transferring them from a minimum security facility to a maximum security prison, then those same beliefs must justify transferring someone from non-incarceration to imprisonment. This however is Canada and beliefs which are unpopular to those who claim authority, are no reason to imprison someone nor are they reason to deny them due process when in the jail system on other matters. This is especially true when there is sufficient reason to believe he was targeted, assaulted and then arrested ostensibly for some driving infraction, but more likely for his political beliefs, which he is quite vocal about. But again, as this is Canada, those who wear uniforms on the public's dime, and who do not like the beliefs of other Canadians, can suck it up, as they have no right to abuse their office to punish those who question the source, nature and limits of their authority.

Dean Clifford was transferred to a maximum security facility, for no other reason then some mid level bureaucrat within the system does not like his political beliefs and decided to exercise their authority without just cause and have thus placed him in greater danger. Likely they did not like his jovial and fearless attitude, and in spite of the fact that he is both peaceful and not a flight risk, decided to abuse their authority and position. It stinks to high heaven with abuse of power, and needs immediate attention and rectification.

As you have now been served notice of what is happening within your prison system to one of our brothers, and the injustice and abuse brought to your attention, and you have the power with a simple phone call to rectify this situation, the responsibility is clearly yours to address the situation, return him to minimum security as justified by his actions and the charges, and ensure that those who decided to take it upon themselves to punish him for his beliefs are themselves held accountable and face proper and meaningful sanctions.

Understanding the nature of the political system and importance of public pressure, by the time you read this, I will have implored my fellow Canadians, be they Freemen or simple Citizens, to contact your offices, by phone, fax and email, and do their best to raise a storm of protest and complaint.

Letters will be sent to the Ombudsman, federal MP's, the Press, and any other group of Canadians who are concerned about such abuses of bureaucratic power.

Information concerning this occurrence and your role in it will also be kept for the purposes of civil and other legal actions, in existing or future courts.

This is Canada, and people will not be imprisoned lightly or easily for their political beliefs. People who claim that someone's political beliefs are a threat to the safety of others, and therefore imprisoning them is justified, are in fact the ones demonstrating the most dangerous political belief imaginable.

You may not like our political beliefs, as we hold that people in the government should be accountable and all operations transparent. But that is no reason to imprison us nor seek to punish us further if we are in your prisons, especially when it is entirely possible that the original charge is one manufactured by a politically motivated police officer seeking to use his office to hinder lawful political action.

Freemen believe in good-government. This is your chance to show us some.Thank you for your time, I trust you will take the appropriate and honourable steps.Sincerely, and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
I AMRobert Arthur MenardFreeman-on-the-LandInterim Chief of the PeaceCanadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

ROBERT ARTHUR: MENARD LETTER TO CANADIAN FIRST NATION GROUP 'IDLE NO MORE'

Rob: Menard published a letter to the 'Idle No More' group in facebook. Idle No More is a 'First Nations' group in Canada dedicated to illustrating the nefarious actions of the Harper government towards 'first nation' people. At any rate, i liked Rob's letter so much here at Mikiverse Law that i decided to share it with you all. 

TO: Idle NO More
FROM: Divided NO More

Hello and Good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land, and I extend my heartiest hello and warmest regards. I am, according to some members of the Canadian Judicial System, a Freedom Guru, and outspoken advocate for the Freeman movement. The Freemen, although labeled as 'anti-government' are in fact 'pro-good government' and we wish we had it. Having come to the conclusion that the present crop of politicians are not serving the interest of the People of the Country, be they 'indigenous' or some 'non', we have revoked consent to be governed like children and question the fiction which is 'The Crown'.

We do not see a 'Crown', nor much of a difference between people. After all, are we not all people, responsible for our own actions? Are we not all equally here for such a very brief time, and loved equally by the Creator? Are we not all stardust rendered aware, and capable of love?

Concepts and philosophies I have shared have been successfully used by indigenous people in New Zealand, and have resulted in them being deeply empowered against the 'Crown' there. Much of the deception the people who point to The Crown rely upon is identical in all former British Colonies, and I believe there is significant remedy of which you are likely unaware. You also face many challenges and hurdles, and if your ideas are not properly presented to the population of Canada, it will result in a rejection of your actions, with more division enabling those who use 'The Crown' to further subjugate us all.

There must be a way for all people, regardless of who their grandparents were, or what they did to each other, to work together to find a path of peace and abundance for all. The Canadian people are not your enemy, and it would seem that those who claim to be acting as representatives, are enemies to us all, save their own political agendas.

There are so many Canadians who are deeply upset with the treachery, deceit and corporate toadyism of the various governments, that maybe the time is right for dialogue between the people, with those who claim to be acting for the Crown shut out. The plain and simple truth is, the government seems to be against all the people in the land, and apparently seek to pit us against each other. Perhaps our forefathers were stupid enough to fall for their tactics; I am hopeful we can do better. If we are to divide ourselves for things we can't control, such as who our parents were, then we might as well divide ourselves based on what we can control, such as the colour of our socks. In my mind, doing either are equally ludicrous.

This is not to mean I reject your heritage, or that of anyone else. For one, if not for the various heritages and cultures, we would not enjoy the variety of dishes available. I believe that all heritages form important parts of the majestic tapestry which is humanity, with no thread more important than another. Certainly I do not want to see those colourful threads bleached white by homogenous profit seeking corporations, though sadly that seems to be the present trend. To me assimilation is the process employed by the Borg. I want a rich tapestry, but without the previous division and fear and judgment which afflicted our forefathers.

I must tell you, I do not believe the people who hide behind the concept of the Crown will ever provide you the remedy you seek. They are addicted to their fictions, rely heavily upon deceit and lies, and only the truth will bring healing and peace. They create division where unity is needed, and seed ignorance where wisdom is called for. Their purpose is to extract as much wealth from this country as possible and as long as we argue amongst ourselves about our dwindling shares, they take more. They are the only ones who benefit when people divide themselves.

For the people of Canada however, I believe it is a different story. I believe the average Canadian to be fair and just, when not being led by their fears, and that there is a growing sense of unity and spiritual consciousness. It is perhaps the case that what we are witnessing is in fact the the long awaited acceptance of a more spiritual outlook, one practiced instinctively so long ago by your ancestors. Certainly for our planet to survive, a more traditional outlook and awareness of our place within the environment as stewards of the land is required.

Your ancestors knew something that many now apparently forget. That is the right to engage in The Process of Treaty. You do not have to waste your time demanding that old Treaties, made between those now long dead, be enforced, renegotiated or honoured. There is no need to complain about how they were dishonoured by those who rely on fictions. You are dealing with politicians who will lie and cheat to ensure their corporate friends find profit. They cannot be trusted and do not represent the will of the majority of Canadians.

Since those old Treaties have been apparently abandoned by those now in office, why not claim the right to Treaty again, and this time, seek agreement not with 'The Crown', as it is simply an imaginary fiction which many Canadians are starting to reject, but with the people of Canada, as equals? As Brothers, Sisters, Fathers, Mothers what is stopping us from finding our peace, without empowering the liars in the government by acknowledging their fictions or asking them to do it for us? Are we but children who need their guidance and oversight? Or are we adults, with common goals and shared desires? Do we not all want to watch our children grow and inherit a nation where all are encouraged to find their passions, and enjoy peace and abundance in a spirit of unity and friendship, recognizing equality within the human family?

It will be a difficult path at first I imagine. It will require forgiveness on the part of one, and an abandonment of judgment on the other. Likely the latter will be the more difficult, as often with the abandonment of judgment of others, how we have been acting becomes more apparent, and a burden of shame can result. It is at that point the forgiveness becomes so important.

I would like to address your group. I would like to share with you all a vision I have had for this country, and explain the perspective of the Freemen. I would like to help you develop a comprehensive message to present to the people of Canada, and initiate a New Treaty Process with them directly, which does not rely upon the corporate puppets masquerading as representatives. I would like to help you create a historic Treaty not with the fictional 'Crown', but with The People. I would like to do so with an eye to creating a proper body politic called “The People of Canada', which includes all people, with divisional statuses eschewed.

I want to throw a party, and not invite 'The Crown'.

I think it is the only way the people of Canada will find the peace and abundance which is our birthright, as Startdust. Truthfully, I think we have an opportunity to show the entire world a better way, and I think with that opportunity, comes a corresponding duty.

Humbly and hopefully, I await your response.
Sincerely,
Robert-Arthur: Menard

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

 

THE NATIONAL RESPONSE

WHAT IS A FREEMAN ON THE LAND

ROBERT MENARD - BURSTING BUBBLES OF GOVERNMENT DECEPTION

DEAN CLIFFORD LECTURE PART 2--THE NAME, THE TRUST, YOUR ROLE IN COURT

 This is the same Dean Clifford lecture that was originally published within The Mikiverse in June, 2011 as "Part 2 e1-6". It was retitled by the authors, and, I have amended this post accordingly.
The Mikiverse December 13th, 2011.
EPISODE 1

EPISODE 2

EPISODE 3

EPISODE 4

ESTABLISHED, FUNDAMENTAL, AXIOMS

With thanks to Mika of the family Rasila and the Ontario chapter of the Freeman of Canada group.

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family -January, 2009

CLAIM OF RIGHT USED SUCCESSFULLY IN A NEW ZEALAND COURT

Just after 6pm on the 24th May 2010, the three men accused of damaging the Waihopai spy base near Blenheim, in a protest against New Zealands role in a global spy network were found not guilty by a jury in Wellington District Court.

The men admitted they did it that fact was never in dispute making the jurys not guilty verdicts a remarkable and perhaps unprecedented in such circumstances, declaration of their right to protest in such a fashion.

Campbell Live talks to two of the three men found not guilty teacher Adrian Leason and Dominican Friar Peter Murnane.

Of his reaction to the verdict Mr Murnane says he is delighted, not entirely surprised.

I had a gut feeling all along that we could get an acquittal, but you cant be sure of that, so were delighted, he says.

Our defence was based around a claim of right, which is a legal term that says if we believed that our acts were lawful, we had a defence, says Mr Leason.

We might be wrong in law as the judge actually suggested we were and actually made a ruling, we were in error in law but we were correct in our belief that we were acting lawfully.

In New Zealand law thats a good thing to do to act in an effort to help and save another in danger.

We are convinced in our hearts and minds that that spy base, for 20 years, has been contributing to US war machine, war effort particularly the war in Iraq, we can prove that, says Murnane.

Its illegal in humanitarian law, international law, so we ask what is it doing for us in New Zealand why a spy base?

There is law to protect plastic and there is a law to protect human beings, says Mr Leason.

We broke a law to protect plastic to uphold a law to protect human life. The jury heard that and said yes, protecting life matters more than protecting plastic.

CNN: POTOK AND SANCHEZ NOW ATTACK "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT"

CASE DISMISSED WITH CAUSE AND PREJUDICE JUDGE BOWS TO SOVEREIGN

FUNDAMENTALS OF FREEDOM