Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
First, we need to point out that authority simply does not want us to know about what
they call ancient obscure laws that they would rather not have on the books, and
again the best way to talk about these rights is by showing examples; [like]
The Grand father clause is an old common law blue zone law /concept that
authority would not like you to know of because it creates exceptions to new rules.
In Vancouver there are now over 60 dispensaries that opened who are
trying to get grandfather rights before they rule in the Federal and SCC
precedent setting cases before them now. - What's at stake is that the
Federal Courts are trying to reverse marijuana rights won in BCSC by
declaring that when/if we get charged in any marijuana activity means
we must now defend these charges in Federal Court under the rule of
law like other NATO countries in these Admiralty courts, AND in this way
we're being robbed of benefiting from our favourable BCSC rulings
AND frankly the only defence that any 'ordinary resident' has to bar the AG/police from
taking your rights away is to be prove to them that you are a 'private individual' therefor
cannot be deprived of any right that we won in BCSC. In law, any recognized Party could
declare that by joining their party, you become a private individual, AND if this party actually
had a policy that they will defend that these BCSC marijuana grandfathered rights cannot be
taken away would result in a case where, when/if you were busted for breaking a Federal rule, would
result where we can demand that these charges be heard in BCSC instead of Federal Court, and the
Judge would be forced to send you to BCSC where the charges would be dropped if they conflict
with any favourable case law precedent that we enjoy under our rule of law [not NATO's rule of law]
and frankly if you're found guilty in BCSC means you were breaking both Federal and Provincial law.
IN PRACTICE, The only 'recognized party' that will defend this right to not have our
members or agents deprived of our BCSC rule of law is the Marijuana Party.
IN LAW, that means if you are just an 'ordinary resident' at the time of being
arrested, means you have no such right to refuse to be governed under
NATO /Federal Court, when it's a Federal warrant that's being served.
IN LAW what the Harpster is doing is taking away the Sovereign rights of ordinary
residents by insisting that you must now be governed under these NATO courts.
AND with our political affiliation, they have no right to take away our rule of law.
The only practical choices left are to: get your party to change their policy [or] join our party
EVER SINCE The Magna Carta was introduced, we're governed under habeus corpus
IN OTHER WORDS: Maritime laws have historically always tried to take away our
common law rights, especially when the King approved of such supremist /elitist tactics
There is nothing new under the sun [Eccl 8] - Sec 8(2) CC declares that English case
law will uphold that when Kings abandon their trust that the common law courts
must respond to protect private individuals the right to be ruled under our case law.
The Courts are duty bound to NOT repeat what Hitler did to his undesirables in 1935
AND no king can ever implement Admiralty rule on its people without having lost a war.
GUILTY AS CHARGED: Constitutionally [under blue law] it's called TREACHERY:
Collusion with the treasury to subvert the rule of law of any Commonwealth body