The Theft of our Rights, and The Black Robed Cult of "Judges".

Mt 23:7 KJV

¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 The [Judges and Politicians] sit in Moses’ [Law] seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you [of God's Commandments] observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their [Robes],
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the [assemblies and meeting halls],
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, [Your Lordship, Your Lordship.]

It is demanded of judges to master these four (4) qualities: independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence.

What we have witnessed in practice is gross  incompetence, profound bias,  and predilection towards legislation at the cost of fundamental principles and your absolute rights.

Some Rights arising out of our British Anglo-Saxon heritage are: All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (English Common Law.)

From the Magna Charta (1215): The right to be not jailed or fined by the court except by the word of two or more witnesses who come under their name (not as an officer), or by the law of the land, which refers to the Anglo-Saxon Common Law. The forbidding of an officer of the "Crown" to lay charges (pleas) in the court. The protection against false charges and the right to a trial by a jury of peers (a.k.a. good men/women of the town one resides). The right of access to the justice system, and to our rights. The right not to be outlawed except by your actions of maliciously doing damage to another person and/or their property and by a jury of peers. Outlawed means to be out of the protection of common law justice and common law rights, which most Acts of parliament violate.

Right to travel, which in essence is the right to go to church, or use the highways to take one's goods or produce to or from market. There are many other rights and freedoms that can be identified with these that are rapidly being eroded and crushed under the steam roller some have irreverently referred to as the 'New World Order'.

As Commonwealth Citizens, we have lost many of our absolute or basic rights by the devious tactics promoted by the international banks, and put in place by their lackey traitorous lawyer politicians and, by so-called "laws" enacted by the black-robed thugs and traitors of the judiciary.

You need to be aware that the black robes you see parading around our courthouses have in their direct ancestry the cannibal (human flesh-eating priests of Baal) cult priests of Molech who measured out their weird sense of justice to the peasant classes and slaves of the Roman Empire while burning their infants in sacrificial fires. This cult came into the Roman Empire, and thus, London through the Phoenicians originating as the Canaanites of ancient Palestine. Now you should understand why we have had the imposition of Roman Law - the legal system of despots, etc., etc.; and, all this without benefit or control of duly elected legislators.

The Saxon common law provided justice through the jury system. The court represented the dead, "imbeciles", and infants (ages 0 through 18) and crimes against the common good (the realm). The alleged crime was presented to a "Grand Jury" (25 people) (Magna Charta s. 20) who decided upon the authenticity of the claim and who laid the charge if warranted (indictment). It was the sheriff's responsibility to call the juries (petty and grand), to keep order in a court, and carry out the orders of the court. The sheriff was completely independent of other political bodies.

The jurisprudence course should contain a good working knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Common Law and judges should be required to maintain the intent and philosophical reason of that legal system. In Canada, our Judges are required to make an oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and a duty to uphold the law she oversees for the benefit of all freemen and commoners. (As you can clearly see from 'Appeal Court Judgment' these parasite judges think nothing of breaking their sacred oath to the laws of the Sovereign.)

Our money system was replaced by international bankers with debt paper known as the Versailles or Breton Woods system. This system has been used by plunderers of nations and empires since antiquity. The basis of the system is usury or interest. A reasonable amount of interest is acceptable when property is leased for another to use; however, the banks lend or lease nothing to the Government, except a number in a computer. They extract plunder through income and other taxes, control and strip our raw materials, and even control food and manufactured goods (the basic needs of everyday life.)

Legislatures have used "assumpsit contract" as a primary means to deprive all of us of our basic rights. A contract is a vehicle for the exchange of property. Property can be Real (land, house, etc.), Chattel (car, clothing, jewellery, etc.), and/or Personal (labour, skills, intellectual knowledge, etc.). Normally, a contract has to be in writing or witnessed if it's a verbal contract; and, terms have to be fully revealed and understandable to all parties involved to be valid. English law made provision for "un-witnessed" contracts by applying a common sense approach to the circumstances surrounding the exchange, or intended exchange of property. This was called "assumpsit" (assumed). If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

How was this used to deprive Canadians of their rights? Government Acts, such as the Income Tax (1917) and subsequent Income Tax Acts, Motor Vehicle Acts, Marriage Acts, and countless others were written to be "constitutional" and in compliance to the non-violation of rights; but with a trap for the unwary (most of us).  They only make decisions based upon arguments presented. The contract issue versus the Law of the Land, or the intent of the Law of the Land has always been excluded from such cases.

Special definitions were written into those Acts that precluded "natural persons"; but, if one assumed, by his common (generic) understanding of certain words that he were liable for or covered by the requirements of that Act and did certain things, he would unknowingly make a contract (an assumpsit contract) placing himself under the requirements of that Act.

The three Acts we will concentrate on here seem the most abusive now:

(1.) The Income Tax Act uses a special definition for "person." If a person assumes that he is covered by that definition and files an income tax return and pays an income tax, he becomes a legal entity called a "taxpayer" and is subject to the Income Tax Act and Regulations. These are the terms of the contract, and rights or laws have no bearing on your relations with Revenue Canada. [See Detax Canada for more insight]

A permit means permission from an owner of property to use his/her property for their purposes - private or commercial. A license is a waiver of prosecution for doing something unlawful. The statutory law concerning [that license] is the terms of the license contract. For a permit, one may, or may not have to pay something for that use, since the owner may sell or give away his property. A permit tells others that you have a right to use someone else's property and it is proof that a contract is in place. The owner of the property may explain certain terms for the use and care of his property while you are using it. Those terms become the terms of the contract in the issue of a permit.

(2.) The original licensing of a motor vehicle operator was for one who used the highways to make a commercial living; although, the language of the statutory law would leave one to believe that "proficiency" was the issue. If that were the issue, proficiency certificates would have been in order - not licenses; however, proficiency certificates don't imply a contract - or indicate a signed confession of guilt for doing something unlawful. Obviously, the latter was the real aim of licenses - the outlawing of the license applicant so that military or admiralty law could be imposed instead of the cumbersome (to the politicians with an agenda) common law.

Travel upon the highways was without toll or post; however, the government could extract a rental or lease payment from those who used public property to make their living. Remember, public property is the people's property held in trust under the name of "the Crown". The trickery has been the people's acceptance of driver's licenses, which puts them under assumpsit contract and the use and rental agreement originally meant for commercial drivers. The Roman or Napoleonic legal system (guilty until you prove your innocence, charges by police, fines going to the government as a form of taxation, forced purchase of insurance, etc.) is built into the Motor Vehicle Acts and becomes the terms of the contract. There may not be anything wrong with a need for a driving proficiency exam and a presentable certificate of proficiency; but, there is no need whatsoever for a driver's license. Why would or should one need a license from some bureaucrat to use one's own property, the public roads? Fuel taxes pay for highways five times over!

(3.) Under what circumstances does the state get into the licensing of marriage? The government has the responsibility to maintain permanent records of marriages and witness the verbal contract between marriage partners (solemnization). Until recent times, marriages were recorded in Family Bibles. Natural people belonged to the Creator; and, it was in His Church that permission was granted to a man and woman to produce new offspring for "His Glory within the Holy Sacrament of matrimony". When did the State government assume the role of Creator? What has taken place under this scheme of the Socialist International is that by a couple accepting a State marriage license, all offsprings of that marriage, belongs to the State government.

Lawful contracts are voidable if the terms were not properly revealed at the time of the making of the contract or the contract was made and directed by coercion (threat and fear). Assumpsit contracts are more difficult to void as the whole legal system is geared to protect these dastardly incursions into the people's rights.

Compliance and ignorance of their schemes is their best protection.  But as the 'Appeal Court Ruling' shows, even standing up for your rights in an open court does not protect the theft of your rights by the Black Robed Cult of liars and tricksters.

Copyright (c) 2003 BC Revolution. Permission is granted to copy, and distribute.

The Feminization of the courts by special interests.

Latest News
Government Lawyers to Sit As "Judges"

The career prospects of Government lawyers received a major boost today,
with the announcement they can now sit as judges in a wide range of civil
and criminal cases.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith,
have agreed to open up the judiciary to lawyers from the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS), Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Government Legal Service
(GLS). For the first time, Government lawyers will be eligible to sit as
Civil Recorders (part-time judges) and as Deputy District Judges in the
Magistrates' Court.

The Lord Chancellor said:

"Many reforms are being considered for the justice system and in opening
up appointments in this way I am aiming to increase the diversity of the
pool from which judges are drawn and to reduce to a minimum the barriers to
appointment to lawyers with the appropriate skills."

The Lord Chancellor emphasised that all candidates for appointment to these
posts will be required to apply in the usual way and will be assessed
against the competencies for the post. He added: "As with all appointments I
will appoint the person who is best qualified for the post".

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, said:

"Full-time members of the judiciary get the necessary experience by first
sitting as part-time judges, whilst continuing their day jobs. Government
lawyers, until now, have been severely restricted in the judicial
appointments they can apply for. This has restricted their opportunities for
progressing their careers beyond the CPS, SFO or GLS.

Now, for the first time, all Government lawyers can apply to sit as
part-time judges in civil work. And CPS and SFO lawyers can become Deputy
District Judges in the Magistrates' Courts.

This is excellent news for Government lawyers. Government work offers
unparalleled challenges and responsibility. It can now also offer the
brightest and best the opportunity to progress to the judiciary. It means
that the judiciary can benefit from a broader intake, with all the skills
and experience Government lawyers can offer. It is a further development in
the status and role of the CPS as it enters its third stage. I look forward
to seeing the first government lawyer progressing to the bench full-time."
Under the current arrangements CPS, SFO and GLS lawyers are eligible to
apply for appointments in jurisdictions where the State is not habitually a
party. After very careful consideration, particularly in relation to the
requirement for an independent and impartial tribunal, and in discussion
with the judiciary, it has been agreed that:

a) CPS and SFO lawyers will be eligible to apply to sit in tribunals where
the Government is a party.

b) CPS, SFO and GLS lawyers will be eligible to apply to sit as Recorders
in civil work, except in civil matters that involve their own Department.

c) GLS lawyers will be eligible to apply to sit as Deputy District Judges
in the Magistrates' Courts (but not to sit on their own Departmental
prosecutions).

d) The practicalities of listing in the Magistrates' Courts will be considered

so that CPS and SFO lawyers will be eligible to apply to sit on criminal

matters as Deputy District Judges in cases not involving their own Department.

The Lord Chancellor has also decided to develop detailed arrangements that
would allow CPS/SFO/GLS lawyers who hold part-time judicial appointments

in tribunals, to apply to sit full-time in another jurisdiction, for example, as a

Circuit Judge.

http://www.cjsonline.org/news/2003/june/government_lawyers_to_sit_as_judges.html

'Are you Masons?' challenge to judges
By Auslan Cramb, Scotland Correspondent
(Filed: 19/02/2003)

Three judges yesterday refused to reveal whether they were Freemasons after being challenged by a veteran human rights campaigner.

Robbie the Pict put the question to judges hearing his complaint that a "secret society" of senior figures in the Scottish establishment is undermining the impartiality of the judicial system.

He believes that judges who are members of the Speculative Society could have influenced cases against him during his long-running campaign against tolls on the privately operated Isle of Skye bridge.

The campaigner said that Sir Iain Noble, chairman of the Skye Bridge Company, was a member of the same organisation, and also suggested that the 250-year-old debating club had Masonic connections.

Appearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday before Lords Gill, Kirkwood and Wheatley, he demanded to know whether they were Freemasons.

"Have you ever taken the oath for the purpose of entering into Masonic association?" he asked.

After a few moments of silence, Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk, urged him to continue reading his speech, and said: "We are certainly not going to answer that question right now."

The protester replied: "That is as much as I wish to upset your lordships, the rest is downhill."

The latest case follows his conviction in 1998 for failing to pay bridge tolls. He claims the collectors of the toll do not have proper authority and is arguing that no cases involving the bridge should be heard by society members.

He wants membership of the group considered against the background of a dozen failed appeals in his anti-toll campaign.

Raymond Doherty, QC, advocate depute, produced a list of members from an internet site to show the "Spec" was not a secret society.

The society's own literature describes it as a "secret brotherhood bound by intangible ties of shared loyalty and common tradition".

A judgment will be issued at a later date.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/are_you_masons_challenge_to_judges.html

__

Second Opinion: Help wanted: A judicial code of conduct

By Adam Dodek | Publication Date: Monday, 25 February 2008

Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that there is no code of conduct
for judges in Canada. The Canadian Judicial Council has issued a booklet
entitled Ethical Principles for Judges, but these are only advisory in
nature.

Lawyers, MPs, MPPs, public servants, doctors, teachers, students, and now
even paralegals are all bound by specific codes of conduct. Recent events
show that the need is pressing, both for the public and for the judiciary,
and judges should be added to this list.

A judicial code of conduct will help to strengthen the value of judicial
impartiality within our legal system. Constitutionally, judicial
impartiality is a basic principle of our legal system. 

In the Provincial Judges Remuneration Reference (1997), the Supreme Court
held that judicial independence applies to all judges in Canada whether they
are members of s. 96 courts or of provincial ones. Judicial independence
exists not as end in and of itself, but as a means of ensuring judicial
impartiality.

Judicial impartiality and its opposite, judicial bias, have been in the
public eye recently with the Canadian Judicial Council's inquiry into the
conduct of Justice Ted Matlow of the Superior Court of Justice.

As the Law Times reported (Jan. 14, 2008), Matlow correctly noted that
judges in Canada are not bound by a specific code of ethics and he was
unaware of any requirement to seek ethical advice. Matlow did not tell his
fellow judges or counsel in the St. Clair streetcar case of his legal battle
with the City of Toronto over development in his neighbouring community of
Forest Hill. Matlow acknowledged his mistake, but the error was not his
alone.

The Law Times reported that Matlow said it would have been better for him to
have asked counsel at the outset of the St. Clair streetcar case to make
submissions on whether he should have heard the case. I agree with Matlow
that this should be the preferable procedure, but it is not the one that is
counseled by the Canadian Judicial Council, the very body that is now
sitting in judgments of his actions.

The council's Ethical Principles for Judges - which, as Matlow correctly
stated, do not bind him - generally looks askance at the notion that a judge
should disclose a possible basis for disqualification to the parties and
give them the opportunity to make submissions.

While this is the rule in England and Australia, and common in the U.S., it
is not the practice in Canada. Justice Matlow cannot be faulted for failing
to follow a procedure that the Canadian Judicial Counsel has disparaged.

The Matlow case demonstrates the need for a code of conduct for Canadian
judges. The proposition should hardly be considered a radical one. Our
American cousins have the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which is
applicable to their federally appointed judiciary.

It also has a federal judicial-disqualification statute (28 U.S.C. s. 455).
In Quebec, Chapter 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides authoritative
guidance on both the grounds and the procedure for judicial recusal. In
Ontario, all we have is one meager provision in the Courts of Justice Act
that says judges should not sit in appeal of their own cases.

Judicial impartiality is not simply about the legitimacy of the judgment in
a particular case. It goes to the heart of the legitimacy of the
administration of justice as a whole. In such matters, we should be seeking
more transparency and more disclosure, both on particular ethical issues,
such as a potential conflict of interest like in the Matlow case, as well as
on the general subject of judicial conduct and ethics.

In Ontario, the Access to Justice Act, 2006 amended the Courts of Justice
Act to require that the chief justice of the Ontario Court of Justice make
available to the public any standards of conduct for judges. The Principles
of Judicial Office are now available on that court's web site. Prior to this
enactment, the mere existence of such principles was not widely known and
actually tracking down a copy of them was a challenge.

The federal Judges Act is completely silent on the question of the substance
of judicial conduct, as opposed to setting up the procedure for an inquiry
into the removal of a judge.

This is a good start, but transparency in the absence of a substantive code
of conduct accomplishes little.  A judicial code of conduct could either be
enacted by the Legislature, as in the American and Quebec examples, or
through the work of the Canadian Judicial Council with public input.

Whatever the Canadian Judicial Conduct decides in the Matlow case, it should
take the opportunity to revisit its principles regarding the disclosure of
potential conflicts and should embark on the broader project of establishing
a code of conduct for judges in this country

Adam Dodek is a visiting scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School. He can be
reached at adodek@sympatico.ca
 

U.S. Deserters Lose Bid For Canada Asylum - Nov 15/2007

(AP) Two U.S. Army deserters who fled to Canada and sought refugee
status on grounds of their opposition to the war in Iraq have lost
their bids to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases.
 

Please go here now...

.