July 23 Part 2 of 5 by TrueMan A Different ViewPoint Edition 25 Continued How did our Canadian Federal Public Servants become our Masters? Reality in Canada today is such that the agents, servants, sub-delegates and allies of our Canadian vast maze of sole and aggregate government corporations have seized power since the mid 1970s and now fully own and control our country for their own selfish purposes without any regard to whether you and I live or die! Think of how ridiculous this is – we are the major investor and only De Jure voting shareholder in our Canadian Federal government corporations and our Federal Public Servants/Employees, whether elected or appointed. In theory the federal government only exists to serve the best interests of the majority of individual human beings in our country, as does all Federal Public Servants, including MPS, Senators, Governor General, Prime Minister and the Queen. "THEY" are all our Employees under the De Jure English Rule of Common Law. It is important to make sense of what I am trying to convey so that you fully understand the meaning and applications of the words "De Jure" and "De Facto". I touched on the definitions of De Jure and De Facto and the critical importance of understanding these concepts in order for you to begin the journey to self-empowerment in order to be able to educate and unite with others so that "WE can stop the Canadian Federal Public Servants from continuing to expand their ownership and control over every aspect of your life and property [See Exhibit 1]. Unfortunately "THEY" have conspired together as has their predecessors to create in Dominion of Canada De Facto Rule of Common Law. Almost always when "THEY" refer to Common Law and/or Rule of Law this is what "THEY" mean. Understanding the difference between De Jure English Rule of Common Law/Natural Law and De Facto Rule of Common Law is critical to your ability to truly access the truth in order to be able to successfully seek justice in the Peoples' Courts and Tribunals without a lawyer. You cannot be free if you do not sort out the De Jure legal rights, Freedoms and Liberties from the illusions created by "THEM" to deliver you into slavery and bondage. Without being truly free, you cannot sustain Peace and Contentment. Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace. I believe that God believes in you, whether or not you believe in God. To me, I do not think that it matters what faith you are, what country you live in, or what time you existed on this planet – there is a God created Natural Law and as the sons and daughters of God, we all have as our birthright Free-Will Choice and Unalienable/Inalienable Natural Law Rights, Freedoms and Liberties. "THEY" know all of this and have very carefully, a little piece at a time chiseled away at our ancient God-given De Jure English Rule of Common Law. Once you learn to read between the lines it does not take much to sort out the frauds from the facts. I will give you an example. Quite likely most of you do not know what the Canadian Privy Council is or what its significance is in tricking you into voluntarily surrendering mostly peacefully your ancient De Jure English Rule of Law Rights, Freedoms and Liberties [See Exhibit 2]. The following definition of Rule of Law is from the Privy Council of Canada website;  Responsible government and federalism are two cornerstones of our system of government. There is a third, without which neither of the first two would be safe: the rule of law. What does the rule of law mean? It means that everyone is subject to the law; that no one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law - not the government; not the Prime Minister, or any other Minister; not the Queen or the Governor General or any Lieutenant-Governor; not the most powerful bureaucrat; not the armed forces; not Parliament itself, or any provincial legislature. None of these has any powers except those given to it by law: by the Constitution Act, 1867, or its amendments; by a law passed by Parliament or a provincial legislature; or by the common law of England, which we inherited, and which, though enormously modified by our own Parliament or provincial legislatures, remains the basis of our constitutional law and our criminal law, and the civil law (property and civil rights) of the whole country except Quebec (which has its own civil code). If anyone were above the law, none of our liberties would be safe What keeps the various authorities from getting above the law, doing things the law forbids, exercising powers the law has not given them? The courts. If they try anything of the sort, they will be brought up short by the courts. The good news is that this narrative supports our proposition that in Canada, We the People and God are the only two truly sovereign legal entities. You need to fully understand what a legal entity is and what sovereign means and the difference between De Jure Sovereign and De Facto Sovereign and how "THEY" use words to hide in the open the sacred truths that would free you, if you learn how to apply them effectively! Note the statements that "no one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law - not the government; not the Prime Minister, or any other Minister; not the Queen or the Governor General or any Lieutenant-Governor; not the most powerful bureaucrat; not the armed forces; not Parliament itself, or any provincial legislature." These are De Facto Truths. The statement "Responsible government and federalism are two cornerstones of our system of government" is deliberately fraudulent and thus De Facto manipulation trying to cover up the simple De Jure Truth that the Dominion of Canada is only a simple ordinary administrative corporation that was created by a Private Members' Bill of the UK Parliament in 1867 under somewhat questionable legal process [See Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15]. The British North America Act, 1867 is actually the Dominion of Canada's articles of incorporation the same as any other government or non-government corporation. Canada is not a federal or federated nation. This is one of several BIG LIES [See Exhibit 16]. Canada is a confederation of corporate Provincial corporations that predated its existence and were incorporated by the UK Parliament as well. The following article puts my point into real perspective for today - Column by Per Bylund, posted on July 07, 2010 By Per Bylund.
Exclusive to STR
Conservatives and libertarians often claim an inherent value in the Rule of Law, a concept that to anarchists may seem a bit strange and, frankly, quite evil. Of course, most of us would accept the notion that predictable, principle-kind laws are much better than arbitrary rulings by a power elite (be it one man or many). Some would even claim society would be impossible without stable and just laws that are both predictable and intuitive.
Yet today, the rule of law seems like a joke. Even if enforced, who would want the literally thousands of laws of modern government to "rule"? After all, the laws are enacted (made up) by government in order to rule us. We might even say that contemporary society is guided by a rule of law-laws are the means by which the political class rules us all.
I have no doubt many conservatives have this in mind when advocating a rule of law: to rule by law. After the Bush II era, why would anyone think differently about the [neo]conservative movement and their "principled" take on government and the threat of terrorism (read: the "threat" of brown people in foreign lands)? Many libertarians (of the statist variety) seem to have basically the same idea, even though they generally claim to want "fewer" laws by which we are ruled.
Yet this is not what the rule of law used to mean. In fact, the rule of law was a principle for civilized society long before there was modern governments and long before there was legislation. Consider this quote by the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato (granted, an evil thinker):
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.
This was written some 2,500 years ago and the meaning is obvious: The rule of law is the "master" of government. In this modern day and age, such a statement means nothing: all laws are legislated (invented) by the political class and forced on us. So what does it mean that government-the political class-is subject to the rule of law?
The answer is simple: Law is not made, it is discovered. Hayek elaborated on the origins of law in his Law, Legislation, and Liberty, in which he showed that true and just law has nothing to do with government. The traditional and age-old concept of Law is a standard or norm for just behaviour that is inherent in our culture and traditions. Law is what we as a society or community believe is just; the rule of judges in such a society is to arbitrate between parties in conflict and, especially, to figure out who acted unjustly and what our societal values prescribe.
Granted, the rule of such law is highly predictable. But it is not stable-it is a living body of law (not laws) that is ultimately dependent on our personal and communal values. The rule of law is nowhere close to the rule by law.
Statists fail to understand Hayek's point, as did Hayek himself (he failed to understand the logical conclusion of Hayekian thinking). Law is not dependent on government, which means society can and will survive and prosper without a ruling class or body. Only legislated law is dependent on government, since government is the only entity with the power to force decrees on society. But legislated law is not Law in the traditional or ancient sense; it is but command and needs to be supported by the threat of force. True law is but the standard of justice according to which we interact with others.
At this point we need to ask statists what they mean by saying they advocate the rule of law. Do they refer to legislated law and therefore advocate a "might makes right" kind of society that is ruled by law? Or do they refer to law in the sense of spontaneously emerging rules for just behaviour, under which government too is subject? If the former, they are truly the enemies of man and liberty-and consequently need to be dealt with.
If the latter, then they ought to realize there is no need for government. In fact, any government is necessarily subject to the law practiced and understood by people in their actions and interactions. As such, it is both uncalled-for, intrusive, and an unnecessary burden on society. What we need is to set the market free in order to discover our common sense of justice through voluntary interaction and free trade. And to once and for all rid ourselves of the yoke of government.
You have a unique opportunity to work with me on actually utilizing the application of these principals to start gaining control of our Canadian federal public servants. I have just filed a challenge under the customs act to what I view as De Facto and unlawful conduct by a Canadian Border Services agency bureaucrat whose name is Mr. Perry Bircht, Manager of customs at Prescott [See Exhibits 17, 18 & 19] Please go to my professional services firms website – www.tucksprofessionalservices.com and send the action letter on this issue to your MP with a copy to all Canadian MP's and senators. It is time that we, the principal investor and only voting shareholder, using modern technology take direct democratic control under the De Jure Rule of English Common Law of all of our agents, servants and sub-delegates. Yours for Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace TrueMan Tuck MORE IN PART 3 next week – stay tuned to learn how to use the De Jure Rule of Common Law to become once again the Masters of the Canadian Federal Bureaucracy and not their slaves! INDEX | Exhibit # | Document Description | | 1 | | | 2 | | | 3 | British North America Bill 52, First Reading, House of Lords | | 4 | British North America Bill 52, Second Reading, House of Lords | | 5 | British North America Bill 52, Committee Amendments, House of Lords | | 6 | British North America Bill 52, Third Reading, House of Lords | | 7 | British North America Bill 52: First Reading, House of Commons | | 8 | British North America Bill 52, Second Reading, House of Commons | | 9 | British North America Bill 52, Committee Amendments, House of Commons | | 10 | British North America Bill 52, Considered as Amended, House of commons | | 11 | British North America Bill 52, Third Reading, House of Commons | | 12 | British North America Bill 52, Commons Amendments considered, House of Lords | | 13 | British North America Act, 1867, Royal Assent | | 14 | British North American Act, 1867 | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | |
