ON OFFENDING ACTIVISTS: but you got to wake up and smell the oses A] I recently went to our SC Library and

check out some references and was shocked with what i found. I then saw a Larken Rose video called Offending Activists htt !""www.youtube.com"watch#v$%iA&h'()*)g and i started using this new ers ective to our resent Canadian case law rulings+ and a lying it to our resent ,created-conflict, under s-.. of the C/SA - A0/ in defence of needing to ress bad news 1 i,m as guilty as every other activist+ because we are all victims of what i call this ,corruct, system+ 2which i address later] - &he end result is that they staged events+ where the outcome was always rigged + which i e' lain in this article htt !""www.scribd.com"doc"345356789"S:C-3;5-CCC-the-ele hant-in-the-corner !OTTO" #INE on th$s! <hen we are fighting a rigged deck+ means when 2not if] we loose a , ositive law, case results where it revents anyone from challenging that recedent+ therefore everyone is harmed by this decision. &he ,crime, e'am le of this screwing is R v )almo Levine that has sto ed every other case with a better defence from roceeding. !% &e e's an e(ample to show how we s) ew ou sel*es by empowe $ng them to do +ust that: CASE IN ,OINT: =rankly voters ask for this abuse of power BECAUSE we'll only elect politicians who promise &>A & ! They will make those tough economic decisions on your behalf. - I0 LA<! ,those tough economic decisions, means that olitician is romising to screw you of rights+ in order create %obs 2for e'am le] because of Cor orate economic ressures+ being enforced as law under the guise of ,foreign obligations, 2note! not agreements] by I)= ?anksters that subvert our Constitution. - IN T&IS .A/: :very olitician has a lawful e'cuse that he is only delivering on what he romised to do if they were voted in. (nder what Canadian Law calls ,colore officii, or commonly known as ,O==ICIAL @OLICA, is actually defined as 'by the people, for the economy, under duress of a bad contract called NAFTA - 2/CL -3998] C% !e)ause o0 th$s Cont$nu$ty o0 Go*e nment Ag eement 12334% Ottawa 5eg$on be)ame a D$st $)t6 +ust l$ke .ash$ngton DC6 77 &his resulted where the Coat of Arms on the ?AR+ the SCC+ and the =ederal Court of A eals changed from being the ,Order of the Barter, to being the Coat of Arms of @arliament CC therefore these >igh Courts now directly answer to Ding >ar ster 2not the ?AR] 2not under the Su remacy of the law.] Our archety al form fell back a form and we are now sEuarely under full feudal law+ %ust like Ding >enry 6th had. @roof of this is ,>ighway Robbery, that,s now called 'seizing the assets of the proceeds of crime' - A0/ the return of Contravention Courts+ which in feudal times were slave courts+ under the Contraventions Act+ which is where the >ar ster controls its criminal courts+ which are under rovincial %urisdiction+ which are still under the Order of the Barter Coat of Arms 2Su remacy of the Law]. /] NO.6 $ get to the FEDE5A# CO85T6 where in ;449 their Coat of Arms changed to being this I)= "0A=&A court that 2back when i filed in it] was there for strictly @arliamentary matters and issues. &his transfer resulted where the >ar ster converted our archety al form+ within the 3st-344 days in Office 2with a minority government] by giving all )aritime %urisdiction, from sea to sea to sea, to 0A&O %urisdiction 1 and in this way com ly with ,the Sunset @rovisions, of the396. ?ank Act+ which is where this original cor orate take-over originated. 20O&IC:! the fish tails with wings on a checkered floor 1 Admiralty %urisdiction ] SIDE !A5: <hen you a ly for remedy in a rovincial court+ you fall under the CC 2%ust like )artin,s Criminal Code outlines] ?ut when you go to this new =:/:RAL CO(R&+ you are actually a lying for remedy under a I)= "0A=&A court that actually is mandated to first rotect those foreign obligations 2like in our case] to never give an 3-inch on the rohibition of marihuana. CASE IN ,OINT: &his new s-.. of the C/SA+ is a @arliamentary issue+ because as to s-.. htt !""www.scribd.com"doc";45F;8;F6";a-s-..-of-the-C/SA-re ort it,s where ,ad%udicators, can create laws 2from new case law brought to them]+ and start to , rescribe by law, under rovisions (v)(w)( ) of s!"" ! #ec $ then says that after this case law is established% this court will be empowered to change these rules% by ordering the government to do so

E% Th$s b $ngs up th$s wo d 'CO558CT' 2created by combining , olitically correct, with ,corru t,,]. @olitically it,s called! 'problem /solution management', where authority creates a roblem 2like s.. of the C/SA]+ in order to dro their solution to the mess + which makes it worseG which is what ,Offending Activists, ro%ects as being very bad. I agree with his ers ective+ because when we fail+ in winning with a ,creative ositive law defence, you create bad case law recedent. &his , olitically correct solution is actually the worst thing we can do - $t's 0all$ng 0o a t ap that s) ews us all6 !ECA8SE6 we a e ask$ng to ha*e ou So*e e$gnty st $pped6 by ask$ng 'th$s 0o e$gn +u $sd$)t$on )ou t' to ule9 F% The e's now these 2 )annab$s ""A5 test )ases be$ng b ought to th$s FEDE5A# CO85T+ ?(& what must be understood is that by sim ly asking this ?O/A to rule on giving human rights for ,those classes of ersons+, means ,we, the victims of the old ))AR are actually em owering this new =:/:RAL CO(R& to ?:CO): the >armaceutical Industry /rug Cartel Courts of Canada.2of s-..] - It,s im ossible for the ))AR Coalition to win+ when their courts mandate is to rotect foreign cor oration obligations. A0/ what,s going down is this ,creating of a roblem, in order to offer ,a solution that only makes it worse,. AND by apply$ng 0o emedy &E5E6 we the *$)t$ms a)tually ) eate the )ase law p e)edent that s) ew us all9 G% AS I SEE IT: E*e yone who $s apply$ng 0o a emedy $n th$s FEDE5A# CO85T must w$thd aw th$s Appl$)at$on to ha*e those ad+ud$)ato s ule6 because those ad%udicators must make rules that force us to com ly with foreign obligations 1 after all we want this 0:< <ORL/ OR/:R im lemented. A0/ by withdrawing these case files+ we take away this ower-grab that s-.. wants to seiHe. As $ see $t: if we don,t ask this court to rule+ means we deny consent to be governed under them. &he very nature of this new =:/:RAL CO(R& intervention is re ugnant and a tra to enslave us all. !OTTO" l$ne on th$s: it,s incredibly stu id to believe that anything the feds romote as being the new olitically correct way to address our roblems actually deserves the abuse+ because you literally asked for it.. It's not the solut$on - $t's the t ap to the mess they ) eated6 by $mplement$ng s:;; o0 the CDSA $n the <st pla)e9 &% In all 0a$ ness 1be0o e th$s a t$)le% 0o one could blame anyone for not seeing behind the smoke screen 2which in law is called the veil of the Office] ?(& frankly now that it,s ressed+ means if a lawyer refuses to withdraw a =:/:RAL CO(R& filing+ means this lawyer is cons iring against his client,IsJ !/ DEFINITION! in 3998+ &he ?AR,s new oath was enacted to serve the 0:< <ORL/ OR/:R. A n ,ethical lawyer, can choose to %ust refuse to take your case 2which is what i,m finding a lot of] !8T at 0a)e *alue6 any lawye that takes a ""A5 )ase to th$s FEDE5A# CO85T $s the p oblem - &hey no longer have the e'cuse that they didn,t know that they were falling for a tra that is being construed in order to get screwedG !y 0$l$ng $n those )ou ts6 we ag ee to abandon ou So*e e$gnty9 ON T&IS ,OINT: >ow can we rotect ourselves from this abuse# &hat,s sim le! ?y watching who files in this registry+ means anyone can then+ contact those who filed+ so that they can make an informed choice that com els them to withdraw this filing+ before it,s ruled on. in order to not create that 0ew <orld Order solution. .e a e not +ust wh$n$ng he e6 !ECA8SE ou =uad a EDA $s a)tually o00e $ng a solut$on+ where 2as it,s ground motives] we are ressing to convert that every one who was covered under the old ))AR+ can now be rotected by undertaking our creative a lication of , ositive law, that enables the ?C Su reme Court 2in our case] to return to its, lawful duty under our Constitution+ to administer the medical issues of it,s residents that were rotected by ?C case law recedent+ in order to enforce com liance to that old ))AR rogram =RA0DLA! Anything less is an abandonment of the rule of law+ 8NDE5 th$s NE. .O5#D O5DE56 that FEDE5A# CO85T )annot negat$*ely a00e)t the e)onomy o0 any Co po at$on do$ng bus$ness $n Canada+ because under 0A=&A 2foreign obligations ] this Cor oration can sue the government in any Admiralty Court+ for lost income+ and win T&E5EFO5E in law the AB must eventually over-ride any law that rotects ,by the eo le for the eo le, due to foreign contractual obligations+ even tho+ doing so literally ra es the rights of us all+ In our case+ by omitting ?C case law+ means the courts are obeying to the subversion of the rule of law ?(& then that,s e'actly what the >ar ster said he would do when they gave themselves the ma%ority last election. The &a pste a)tually )an say: he's do$ng e(a)tly what he p om$sed to do6 $0 ele)ted. FO5 "O5E on ou solut$on watch this video! htt !""www.youtube.com"watch#v$EEiSAIhOei4Kfeature$youtu.be =or a @eaceful way to act+ click here htt !""www.scribd.com"doc";499F4888"0o-?O/A-is-Above-the-Law-@:&I&IO0