Corrupt Rulings

(When the courts become the handmaiden of government, what is left to defend your Rights?)

What about our "Constitution" ? Doesn't it protect our fundamental "Rights"?

The "Canadian Constitution" was enacted by the Canada Act 1982 [U.K.] c.11 and signed into Canadian Law by the Queen, by the consent of the government of Canada.

Our government, which solely receives its alleged authority from the Throne of England as our everlasting heritage, stated this (below) as the Preamble to our so-called constitution:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

The Preamble to such a document is supposed to set the guiding principle and intent of the document. The "Supremacy of God" statement makes us equals in the eyes of the Constitution (there can be only one Supreme Being) as does the term "rule of law".

According to the preamble, all laws apply equally to every person (even the Queen) and for the makers of the law to manipulate the law so as to exempt themselves from its duty, punishment or protection is against the Supreme Law of Canada.

Of the rights contained in the Constitution, the most fundamental are those referred to in Section 7. Preceding sections of the Charter give focus to the rights contained in s. 7 and are defined as a means to further add protection to our most basic Rights.

LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Clearly from this simple section it is easy to see that we have a right NOT TO BE DEPRIVED of these fundamental rights, excepting principles of fundamental justice. So what are the "principles of justice"?

Essentially, these fundamental principles involve the following:

Morally innocent MUST NOT be punished.
Criminal matters involve presumption of innocence, and the right of judgment by jury of one's peers.
Basic Tenets of law apply (largely inherited from our Anglo-Saxon Common Law of England - Circa 871-899 under King Alfred)

Naturally, as with all Rights, there is a reciprocal duty of us all to respect the rights of others. Our right to the free use of the Highways (guaranteed to all Commonwealth subjects under the code of laws of King Alfred the Great) is qualified by our duty to respect the rights of others. Rights give lawful authority to governments as per their duty to preserve our Rights.

Thus, the Constitution makes room for the lawful (or reasonable) limits of our rights per the fundamental principles of justice.

RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA??????

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

All sounds very good so far doesn't it?

Regrettably, the courts of this Province, and the Supreme Court of Canada, have butchered and bludgeoned the intent and purpose of our Constitution and made it essentially impotent in protecting our Rights.

Where is the proof?

Lots and lots of cases provide example after example of how the highest courts of this land are rendering incoherent and unlawful judgments, at the cost of your most basic rights. One profound and disturbing example just occurred January 29, 2003.

See the former Chief Justice of BC's comments about how our courts are being secretly influenced by degenerate special interest groups... Click below link.

http://www.fathers.ca/chief_justice.htm

Supreme Court Decision pulls rug from authority of "Crown" government in Canada!!!

If the information contained in this exchange from the governments Parliamentary Information and Research Service [below] is accurate, we have prima facia evidence that the alleged Federal Government of Canada, along with the BC Government, is operating without any legal and/or legitimate authority.

If in fact the Magna Carta is no longer the Constitution, and a foundation for the basis of the Canada Act [as provided for in Section 26], which was signed by the Queen of England [who is not permitted to break the terms of Magna Carta] then there is no authoritative or lawful "Crown" in Canada, and hence any government claiming such authority is TOTALLY fraudulent.

In other words, the Magna Carta is inseparable from the Crown, and Crown is inseparable from our Government in the commonwealth of Canada. The government can not eat its cake and have it too.... either they are a Crown established government UNDER authority of the ever lasting "LAW OF THE LAND" as decreed by King Edward III in 1368, or they are impostors and tricksters, in which case they have no more authority to govern than a lawn bowling club.

Suffice it to say this is a matter of the utmost importance, and indeed a letter was sent to the government with the intent of clarification on this matter. This letter was sent in December 2006, and an acknowledgement of receipt was received January 2007.

As of the 16th day of Feb, 2008, NO RESPONSE TO THE ISSUES RAISED has been received... Ask yourself, why?

If you are not sure of the answer, then read article 37 of the 1297 final Charter, that is our current Supreme Law - as confirmed by royal decree of both King Edward I and III. King Edward the 3rd announced in 1368 that the Magna Carta shall have no sovereign, and declared the Magna Carta itself as the eternal 'Law of the Land', which thus clarified and 'sealed the deal' in our commonwealth FOREVER. There is absolutely no legal means by which any law of parliament can be made that has more legal authority than Magna Carta, and its liberties and freedoms therein - and we suggest the government knows this only too well, and if enough of us know, their house of cards comes down.

Did they teach you this in high school? What could be a more important event in our common English History.. No, they don't want you to know this, because it is the key to your freedom, and that of your children. The Magna Carta was and is the protection of the Church and her congregation, and bears the will and authority of God, and the consent of our heirs.

                                                                                                Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9
                                                                                                13 April 2005

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, M.P.
Room 452-D
Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz:

                        Further to a request made by Dennis Young of your office on 1 March 2005, enclosed is a short briefing note entitled The Magna Carta and Canada’s Constitution.

                        Please note that this briefing note does not constitute legal advice, and any person wanting to know their rights and obligations under the Canadian Constitution should consult with a lawyer in private practice.

                        Should you require further information on this or any other subject, please do not hesitate to contact the Parliamentary Information and Research Service.

                                                                                                Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                Andrew Kitching
                                                                                                Law and Government Division
                                                                                                Parliamentary Information
                                                                                                   and Research Service

AK/fg

Encl.

_________

THE MAGNA CARTA AND CANADA’S CONSTITUTION

Parliamentary Information and Research Service

Andrew Kitching
Law and Government Division

Library of Parliament
Bibliothèque du Parlement
13 April 2005

THE MAGNA CARTA AND CANADA’S CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION

The notion that the Magna Carta forms part of the Canadian Constitution has been argued before Canadian courts on a number of occasions, particularly in British Columbia. With few exceptions, courts that have examined the issue have held that the Magna Carta does not form part of the Constitution and can be altered or overridden by provincial or federal legislation. While these British Columbia decisions are not binding in other provinces, they would be influential. Please note that this briefing note does not constitute legal advice, and any person wanting to know their rights and obligations under the Canadian Constitution should consult with a lawyer in private practice.

THE DECISION IN R. v. HESS

An initial British Columbia case, decided in 1949, held that the Magna Carta does form part of the Constitution of Canada. In the British Columbia decision of R. v. Hess,([1])

Mr. Hess was convicted of possession of a narcotic and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He successfully appealed and his conviction was overturned, however he remained in custody pursuant to a provision of the Criminal Code([2]) that allowed detention pending a decision by the Attorney General on whether to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Hess applied to the Court of Appeal for bail, where his application was heard by Mr. Justice O’Halloran.

In Hess, Mr. Justice O’Halloran found that his court had an inherent authority to grant bail which could not be taken away by the Criminal Code. Mr. Justice O’Halloran referred to historical freedoms enjoyed by Canadians, including “… the common law of England which runs in the common law provinces of Canada”([3]) and spoke of the role of courts in limiting the powers of Parliament. He stated:
I conclude that the purported powers in sec. 1025A to deny an acquitted person bail, to obstruct and delay his application therefore, and to detain him in custody for an offence of which the Court has acquitted him and when there is no offence charged against him are all contrary to the written constitution of the United Kingdom, as reflected in Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the
Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701). I conclude further that the opening paragraph of the preamble to the B.N.A. Act, 1867, which provided for a “constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom,” thereby adopted the same constitutional principles, and hence sec. 1025A is contrary to the Canadian constitution and beyond the competence of Parliament or any provincial Legislature to enact so long as our constitution remains in its present form of a constitutional democracy.([4])

DECISIONS SUBSEQUENT TO R. v. HESS

The more recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of R. v. Jebbett([5]) appears to have overturned Hess [SEE NOTE @BOTTOM PAGE]. The case involved an appeal from a parking ticket. The defendant argued that the Motor Vehicle Act and the parking bylaw offended the Magna Carta and sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The BC Court of Appeal held that:

Unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Magna Carta is not a constitutional document. As the Canadian constitutional scholar, Peter Hogg, has noted in his text, Constitutional Law of Canada, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are simply English statutes amenable to ordinary legislation. The Magna Carta was imported into the law of British Columbia by a series of enabling statutes. It remains a part of British Columbia law by virtue of sections 2 and 3 of the Law and Equity Act, which provide:

(2) Subject to section 3, the Civil and Criminal Laws of England, as they existed on November 19, 1858, so far as they are not from local circumstances inapplicable, are in force in British Columbia, but those laws must be held to be modified and altered by all legislation that has the force of law in British Columbia or in any former Colony comprised within its geographical limits.

(3) Section 28 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1828 and all sections of the Real Property Act, 1845 are not in force in British Columbia.

The statute of Magna Carta was discussed by Mr. Justice McPhillip in Munshi Singh, Re (1914), 6 W.W.R. 1347 (B.C. C.A.)at p. 1371, he said:

Magna Carta and The Habeus Corpus Act, … – having relation to criminal and supposed criminal matters, as well as the Act for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject … having relation to other than criminal or supposed criminal matters – is the law of British Columbia, but, as we have seen, subject to be modified by all legislation having the force of law in the Province of British Columbia.

Applying these principles to the case at hand, if the Magna Carta ever provided the rights suggested by the appellant in this case, in my view those rights must be taken to have been modified by the passage of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act and the Streets & Traffic Bylaw of the City of Victoria. The appellant’s argument, based on
Magna Carta, cannot succeed.

The status of the Magna Carta as a constitutional document was also canvassed by the British Columbia Supreme Court in R. v. Lindsay.([6]) In this case, the Appellant was convicted of motor vehicle offences. The Appellant appealed, but refused to pay for the required transcript of trial in order to bring appeal, as required by B.C. Court rules. The Appellant took the position that requirement to provide a transcript amounted to the selling of justice and was contrary to Magna Carta of 1215. A ruling was required to determine whether the principles of fundamental justice were violated by requirement to pay for a transcript. The Court in
R. v. Lindsay acknowledged that the Magna Carta had influence through common law, but held it did not have any constitutional authority in Canada. In doing so it made clear that the decision in R. v. Hess had been superseded by R. v. Jebbett.
Further support for the notion that the Magna Carta does not form part of the law of Canada can be found in D.A.D.S. Transport Systems Inc. v. MacDonald,([7]) where the Court stated that “important as the Magna Carta is as a fundamental part of our legal heritage, I know of no basis upon which the Court could apply its provisions to set aside this legislation.”
Courts have also found provisions of the Magna Carta that guarantee a right to trial by jury do not apply in Canada:
In addition, the respondent argued … that by ancient statutes, including the Magna Carta, the trial by jury is an absolute right. He even put the theory to the court that if there were a disparity between a term in the Magna Carta and the Criminal Code of Canada the
Magna Carta should override the Criminal Code of Canada. I decline to accept any such theory.([8])

STATUS OF THE MAGNA CARTA IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISIONS

There has been a recent reference to the Magna Carta by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the decision of Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission),([9]) the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice LeBel mentions the Magna Carta:

The notion that justice delayed is justice denied reaches back to the mists of time. In Magna Carta in 1215, King John promised:
“To none will we sell, to none will we deny, or delay, right or justice” (emphasis added). As LaForest J. put it, the right to a speedy trial has a been a “right known to the common law … for more than 750 years” (R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588 at p. 636, 39 D.L.R. (4th) 481).([10])

This decision, while recognizing that Canadian law may have its roots in the Magna Carta, says nothing about its inclusion in the constitution. Moreover, Mr. Justice LeBel in this passage spoke for the minority, and as such this decision is not binding on any court in Canada.

([1])     [1949] 1 W.W.R. 586 (B.C. C.A.).
([2])     R.S.C. 1927, c. 36.
([3])     Supra, note 1, at p. 596.2.
([4])     Ibid, at p. 596.
([5])     2003 BCCA 69, 180 B.C.A.C. 21, 106 C.R.R. (2d) 186, 297 W.A.C. 21.
([6])     2003 CarswellBC 1913; 2003 BCSC 1203, 110 C.R.R. (2d) 30.
([7])     1996 CarswellBC 1937 (B.C. S.C.).
([8])     R. v. Dobell (1978), 5 C.R. (3d) 233 (B.C. S.C.).
([9])     [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 (S.C.C.).
([10])   Ibid., at para. 146.

[Regarding R. v Jebbett, the BC Court of Appeal did not regard R. v Hess, as they did not know about that case at the time, nor do they ever refer to it in their reasons for judgement in any manner. The Crown lawyer representing the City of Victoria, did not raise any issues as to the authority of Magna Carta - that strange action was solely the responsibility of the BC Court of Appeal, who used the Peter Hogg opinion. Peter Hogg is allegedly of the rather staggeringly off-the-wall opinion that the Great Charter of Liberty, as established by FOUR KINGS and the FREE PEOPLE of the common wealth, was a parliamentary creation, and therefore not supreme.

Contrast that Hogg statement to the contention of parliament that the Canada Act, which has never been approved by the people, is a constitution rather than a statute - probably by the simple fact they wrote the word 'constitution' on it, as opposed to it being a ratification of the people to form a government.

From sec. 26 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.... the vital part that afforded permission to the Queen to sign it, and thus not infringe the liberties contained in the Law of the Land - Magna Carta!!!!

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.