On the ongoing deafening silence of S-55 OF THE CDSA with Trudeau in power

BACKGROUNDER: These NATO 'marginal implementations' came from applying the orderly transfer
on how to systematic convert any controlled substance, from being 'in Canada', in order to no have
these controlled substances be under CDSA /NATO regulations, in a Throne Speech on Oct.15, 2012.
From the onset, i saw this as being the blueprint on how authority was going to implement this new LP
/MMPR program, and all warnings that i made back then about this tabling are now coming to pass.
It's come to my attention that had i not saved it that this document that it would be totally buried
What should be noted is that they cover everything: Schedule I, II, III, IV, V, VI. of the CDSA
https://www.scribd.com/doc/206723278/2a-s-55-of-the-CDSA-report [attached hard copy]
WHAT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT IS THAT: S 55-1 is all about this paper queen called Governor
in Council dictating /making new regulations as if law until legislation is passed to enact it. [then next]
S 55-2 is all about having a Minister of NATO Public Security tell the paper queen to pass this into law
S 55-3 is the goal [after this act]: any new CDSA regulations shall be read /dictated to Parliament.
As to S 55-1.a - NOTE: These new standards apply to all products covered by CDSA regulations;
These new regulations apply, so that NATO can now hold jurisdiction to control [marijuana in our case]
from being produced in Canada, in order for it to be regulated as an import /export commodity [and]
that's exactly what has occurred under this new LP /MMPR program [under Federal Court regulations]
- These CDSA regulations are all about the importing into Canada and exporting from Canada
of marijuana under what's now under NATO /Federal Court jurisdiction ['outside Canada']
- The conflict in law was created by this SCC /Smith declaring that cannabis is legal in Canada.
AS to S 55-1.b thru .j - the issuing or revoking of these import /export licenses is based on complying
with any regulation, where any of their UN regional inspectors can impose as necessary on a Licensed
Producer [LP] to provide [for example] secure premises to grow /process any controlled substances,
[and] by prescribing to lots of laboratory testing, in order to have scientifically CDSA backed proper
labelling, in order to prescribe standards for dosages [like pharmaceuticals are supposed to do]
- [for example] the rules and regulations /consistency standards for cannabis oils are now in
place, so these products can now be supplied by any other LP that meets these standards
- [AND] all kinds of LPs have applied to have those uniform standards for baked marijuana
edibles set, so that they can soon provide a uniform dose control, on this class of products.
- The serious conflict in law was created by the SCC /Smith decision declaring that the CDSA has no
authority to control cannabis as a medicine in Canada... So [at face value] the CDSA took this new
recreational business 'off-shore', in order to impose these new international obligations
AS to S 55-1 .k thru .m - Are about things like City /District inspectors implementing any by-law such
as signage requirements, zoning requirements - AND most important the LPs needed to keep
impeccable accounting practices in order to comply with properly securing any controlled substance.
AS to S 55-1 .n thru .z are all deceptive legalize to have this paper queen give any NATO Public
Safety official to engage /certify any regulatory local authority with the power to regulate this new
import /export trade, and in this way, these inspectors can order any LP to comply with any provincial
or federal licensing rule, who are under-signed as those who communicate /hand down orders from
this paper queen, in order to enforce this Act [or its regulations] as if prescribed by law [but still for now
just marginal regulations] until implemented by legislation [which Justin Trudeau is about to pass]
Examples of this certifying of police forces to do their enforcement are things like Transit Police
being used to do grow-op raids, and general inspection of bus passengers at stations, under
Public Safety, which is a NATO term to whitewash NATO security and control in order to create
forms that prescribe their activities that will be used to create legislation. In all cases, there is a
certification given by NATO to protect these police from enforcing Federal Court mandates that
conflict from omitting these officers public oath from serving and protecting the public trust.

AS to S 55-2 - is all about [quote]: Pertain to law enforcement under other Acts of Parliament.
Please read it carefully and note that this new Minister from NATO Public Safety is now ordering this
paper queen to pass [in this case] this new LP /MMPR program with another Act of Parliament, where
they coerce someone in authority to legislate [in some other Act] an 'act of omission', so that police
officers can legally obey acts that require them to also commit an act of omitting something.
What must be pointed out is that this S 55 of the CDSA mandate of removing /replacing the
regulations for growing /sale of marijuana from Canadian jurisdiction over to NATO started over
2 years before this SCC /Smith decision stated that the CDSA has no control over any
application of medical marijuana under common law in Canada... So [again] the CDSA took
this new recreational business 'off-shore', in order to meet these new international obligations
- AGAIN: Until there is legislation, 'under another Act', there is this new elephant in the room.
NAMELY: Until the common law rights entrenched in this R v Smith /SCC unanimous decision
are respected by the Federal Authorities, means all our common law rights are destroyed.
BECAUSE: Since 1993, all oath holders swear to uphold Federal Court rulings as Supreme
over provincial Court rulings and in so doing law enforcers destroyed common law in Canada.
CAVEAT - The use of 'omission' here is clearly a reference to Sec 16 CC : [defined in the DCL as]
LEGAL INSANITY: 'omitting the obvious and failing to see the obvious harm created by this omission'
of the basic fact that Federal Courts cannot over-ride especially a unanimous SCC ruling, which is
exactly the conflict in law that is being implemented by RCMP Drug Units onto this existing /new
Canadian based Cannabis industry, where these Police are enforcing Federal regulations as law, and
police cannot win these cases unless they are heard in Federal Court [as opposed to Provincial Court]
In our case, [now that it's legal to have an 'in Canada' cannabis industry under common law]
means NATO regulators assume that we now have to agree to be regulated just like any other
industry, under the guise of Public Safety, [when the SCC clearly states that we don't have too]
THE ELEPHANT: 99% of the existing cannabis industry simply refuses to comply with being
regulated by Federal /CDSA regulations, and the SCC declared that this 99% hold rule of law
rights to continue to provide services, under common law grand father rights [for example]
- AND Maritime Authority simply cannot permit this new cannabis industry to be unregulated

it's totally against their mindset to allow this new cannabis industry to be free from these
new NATO /Federal regulations BECAUSE this new over-regulated /tax burdened LP /MMPR
program simply cannot compete against the existing Canadian medical cannabis industry.
THIS CONFLICT IN LAW must be addressed 'before' there is this new legislation on cannabis.
FACT: This R v Smith decision the SCC is worthless until the Provincial courts 'recognize' this ruling.
Until this legislation is passed means the same old Federal Court tyrannical rules will destroy our
Canadian cannabis industry, AND there really is a simple solution on how to be a lawful society again.
NAMELY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Court_decisions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Canada
in reference to this article it states THAT: in Canada it [a unanimous decision] has been used almost
exclusively for important and controversial cases.[2] It has been suggested that the practice has been
used to give greater authority to the decision by having the entire Court speak as a single voice.
The best way to demonstrably show this solution to this conflict in law is with real examples
[like] the Ontario Supreme Court just struck down the bylaws regarding smoking cannabis as
medicine in a public park as unconstitutional. A few days later, this case law application is
suspended in Federal Court, because they are above these Supreme Courts and the ruling is
in conflict with their mandate to regulate their new cannabis industry. This practice of Federal
Court intervention is actually abused all the time to re-establish CDSA rulings especially.
THIS CONFLICT IN LAW STOPS when a Provincial Court uses a phrase [like] in accordance with
this R v Smith SCC decision, we strike down this bylaw of smoking cannabis for medical reasons in
public as unconstitutional and POOF the Supremacy of rule of law in Canada returns civilly.

As soon as a Provincial court starts to directly co-join its case law application to any SCC decision will
create a perfectly lawful ways and means to have our founding principle return NAMELY: Canada is
founded on the principle of that the Law is Supreme over the arbitrary power of the governors.
UNTIL THE PROVINCES TAKE A STAND WITH THE SCC [as they should in constitutional law] will
result where Police just continue to abuse our SCC won rights of we the people. By ignoring this SCC
mandate results where Maritime regulators from the Cities /provinces with Police force are engaging in
'seditious activities', by enforcing that marijuana will only be supplied by Federal /CDSA regulated LPs
and any Loyal Canadian, who is insisting on just growing medicinal plants under SCC common law
jurisdiction is still being subjugated to being the same old criminal relic of the MMAR unless these
growers now conform with these new NATO international standards for recreational marijuana.
An age old problem of FDA /CDSA regulations arises NAMELY: their regulations simply don't work
on all kinds of agricultural products [like] anything organic, [like] essential oils, natural supplements
/vitamins cannot meet pharmaceutical standards so their regulatory system just demonizes anything
God gave us as dangerous or unreliable, because there can be no man made standard to regulate a
standardized dose, or a uniform controlling mechanism, from one brand to the other.
We potheads are now being singled out, by a giant corporate /industrial taboo NAMELY:
- as soon as the SCC declared that cannabis and derivatives are again just another herbal
medicine that cannot be exclusively regulated by these pharmaceutical regulators has resulted
where these regulators are defiantly insisting that their Public Safety concerns must over-ride
the SCC's duty to protect the common law founding principles of Canada [aka - the public trust]
- There never has been a herbal medicine that can be regulated or controlled like a drug.
AND the FDA /CDSA from its inception has always attacked the entire Herbal medicine arts
practices for over a century. because it runs against their grain to not control everything.
THESE CDSA REGULATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THOSE WHO SIGN UP TO THEIR PROGRAM
Constitutionally, their international regulations can't be forced onto anyone, because the SCC said so.
- We agree that all those who willingly entered this CDSA /LP program must face a Federal
Court ruling if they civilly challenge a change in regulations [or] are charged for violating a term
of their contract, because they want the rewards of being able to sell their Licensed Product in
a liquor store [for example] because it now has this UCC bar-code and CDSA label on it.
- BUT this new policy of summoning a dispensary or a grower, who willingly did not sign up to
this CDSA program cannot be prosecuted in Federal Court, when this activity is actually
protected by this R v Smith /SCC unanimous ruling that says we don't need their labelling
- AS WE SEE IT: By properly operating under our Marijuana Party EDA 'no jurisdiction'
defence is presently the only way to be guaranteed to not have to appear in a Federal Court.
- Any other grower or dispenser will have to take their chances of where their case proceeds.
AS WE SEE IT UNFOLDING: Just like in the States [due to this conflict between maybe holding a
SCC /BCSC medical defence [or] facing a Federal CDSA violation of a regulation] will result where:
when someone gets charged and arrested, there's this 'trial before the trial' to just determine whether
the accused appears to face these charges in Provincial Court [or] proceed to Federal Court. AND
[just like the states] if you go to Federal Court, it's just a matter of did you break this CDSA rule or not.
ON THIS: if you hold a good medical defence, you should not have to appear in Federal Court
[whether a EDA Officer or not] it's just comforting to have a guarantee of not being mis'taken'.
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO NEW LEGISLATION: As we see it, all these marginal activities to subvert
Canada's Sovereignty under these CDSA regulations hinge on key wording contained in the next Acts
passed by Parliament. In the mean time the acts of sedition by authority can be fixed by the provincial
courts speaking as one voice with the SCC. As we see it, our Constitution has been deliberately
subverted with lots of Sec 16 CC omissions, and our Courts are obligated to fix the wrongs of a despot
called Harper once he's so soundly defeated for what any Loyal Canadian can call: SEDITION.