We The People - Constitutional Conventions

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

https://historylessonsdeleted.blogspot.com/2024/03/taking-back-ownership-of-your.html Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT Canon 3228 A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true [Or as “truth in commerce”]. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt: 1. The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and 2. The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and 3. The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartiality and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and 4. The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and 5. The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of “guilt” stands; and 6. The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by “Custodians”. [This includes the dead legal fiction non-human “PERSON” that corporate-governments rules and regulations are written for.*] Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and “things” not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and 7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a “resident” of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your “passport” the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the “Guardian” powers of the government and its agents as a “Court of Guardians”. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court); 8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a “public servant” and “government employee” just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by “invitation” to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction – simply because you “appeared”; and 9. The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate); and 10. The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort is the presumption that if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a “false executor” challenging the “rightful” judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of “true” executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by not only asserting one’s position as Executor as well as questioning if the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim; and 11. The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient; and 12. The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead “guilty”, do not plead or plead “not guilty”. Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.

Notice Proof of Claim to Taxation, By Laws et al Proof of Consent to Contract Date ________________________________ Reference # __________________________ To: the City of Brooks 201 - 1st. Avenue West Box 879 Brooks Alberta T1R 1B7 From the property listed below: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. This notice is formally served. No man or woman has jurisdiction over another man or woman without their consent. Contract makes the law and consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. The City of Brooks was first incorporated; July 14, 1910; most recently on September 1, 2005. Therefore, the Clearfield Doctrine within, is applicable. The City of Brooks is operating under the "Color of Law." Tacit consent has been given against said property, without full disclosure. SEE: The 10 points of Contacts Law enclosed. It is incumbent upon the City of Brooks through its clerk, agents, officers, councilors, mayor, employees et al to provide certified evidence of any and all contracts, or consent to contract regarding the aforementioned property and The City of Brooks, Alberta. Regarding; taxation, land use, water use, structures and buildings below, on, or above the land, any and all animals and birds thereon, machinery, equipment and chattels thereon, by laws et al that said property is subject to. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. Canada Inc., Alberta Inc., The City of Brooks et al, are government service corporations doing business as governments. Any Acts, Statutes, by laws, created by these entities only apply to their employees, franchisees, officers, and dependants. Their rules do not apply to the people in general. That's why the rules they create (statutes) are referred to as "public policy." Men and women living on the landmass known internationally as Canada or Alberta, in this case, are not subject to any "public Policies", mandates, or other acts of legislation promoted by any commercial or municipal corporation for its officers and employees. All Acts, Bills, By laws, and Statutes et al created only apply to "person." The definition of "person" in Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition, page 1028, states; in general usage a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute term may include a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Maxim: include, the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. As plainly stated, anything that applies to "person" only applies to a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Not a living man or woman. Black's Law is referenced because this is contract law, the law of commerce. The Crown Corporation is a For Profit corporation, corporations by any name require contracts. Adhesion contracts are not contracts. Tacit contracts have been made without full disclosure. This requirement for evidence is expected within 30 days as is customary in these matters. No response will be confirmation of The City of Brooks tacit consent to this notice. Send a confirmation e-mail to: ____________________________________________________ This is the unalienable right and exercised dominion of Autograph _____________________:______________________ All rights reserved.

Notice Proof of Claim to Taxation, By Laws et al Proof of Consent to Contract Date ________________________________ Reference # __________________________ To: the City of Brooks 201 - 1st. Avenue West Box 879 Brooks Alberta T1R 1B7 From the property listed below: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. This notice is formally served. No man or woman has jurisdiction over another man or woman without their consent. Contract makes the law and consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. The City of Brooks was first incorporated; July 14, 1910; most recently on September 1, 2005. Therefore, the Clearfield Doctrine within, is applicable. The City of Brooks is operating under the "Color of Law." Tacit consent has been given against said property, without full disclosure. SEE: The 10 points of Contacts Law enclosed. It is incumbent upon the City of Brooks through its clerk, agents, officers, councilors, mayor, employees et al to provide certified evidence of any and all contracts, or consent to contract regarding the aforementioned property and The City of Brooks, Alberta. Regarding; taxation, land use, water use, structures and buildings below, on, or above the land, any and all animals and birds thereon, machinery, equipment and chattels thereon, by laws et al that said property is subject to. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. Canada Inc., Alberta Inc., The City of Brooks et al, are government service corporations doing business as governments. Any Acts, Statutes, by laws, created by these entities only apply to their employees, franchisees, officers, and dependants. Their rules do not apply to the people in general. That's why the rules they create (statutes) are referred to as "public policy." Men and women living on the landmass known internationally as Canada or Alberta, in this case, are not subject to any "public Policies", mandates, or other acts of legislation promoted by any commercial or municipal corporation for its officers and employees. All Acts, Bills, By laws, and Statutes et al created only apply to "person." The definition of "person" in Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition, page 1028, states; in general usage a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute term may include a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Maxim: include, the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. As plainly stated, anything that applies to "person" only applies to a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Not a living man or woman. Black's Law is referenced because this is contract law, the law of commerce. The Crown Corporation is a For Profit corporation, corporations by any name require contracts. Adhesion contracts are not contracts. Tacit contracts have been made without full disclosure. This requirement for evidence is expected within 30 days as is customary in these matters. No response will be confirmation of The City of Brooks tacit consent to this notice. Send a confirmation e-mail to: ____________________________________________________ This is the unalienable right and exercised dominion of Autograph _____________________:______________________ All rights reserved.

Regional District of Address Date TO: Board Chair, CAO, CEO, Directors et al FROM: The enclosed documentation: 1) Proof of the Incorporation of the following entities, NOTE: government services corporations dba ("doing business as") EDGAR Search U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Government of Canada, (CIK 0000230098) Government of British Columbia, (CIK 0000836136) and (CIK 0000014306) Government of Alberta, (CIK 0000810961) Government of Saskatchewan, (CIK 0000203098) Government of Manitoba, (CIK 0000826926) Ontario, (CIK 0000074615) Quebec, (CIK 0000722803) Province of New Brunswick, (CIK 0000862406) Province of Nova Scotia, (CIK 0000842639) 2) Copy of The CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE; showing that Corporations by ANY name DO NOT have the legal jurisdiction to Taxation or Law Enforcement et al without a consent to contract by those involved in the transaction. Personal liability is then enforceable upon those acting illegally. The enclosed documents show that the Regional District through its Incorporation may be operating under the "Color of Law" and as such is de-facto, un-lawful, and ultra vires. This information is not here-say nor opinion, rather they state the facts of the matter, which are; ?- What Oath, Declaration, or Covenant was signed upon the commencement of the positions in council? This matters. ?- What jurisdiction is the office under? There are 3 possible Jurisdictions; 1) Government Office: a PUBLIC OFFICE institution, with lawful de-jure status as a holder of the "PUBLIC TRUST", Trustee with Fiduciary control, and thus legal authority to the taxation of the men and women within a geographical area, and is one of "service" to the local needs; school, hospital, peace keeping, infrastructure, courts, et al. 2) Non-Governmental Office (NGO) : a PRIVATE CORPORATE OFFICE, that provides "Service Contracts," and is known as a "Body Corporate" to "Incorporated Inhabitants." This jurisdiction requires Consent to Contract, is de-facto, un-lawful and as such has NO legal jurisdiction to taxation. The Executive Control and Authority comes from the corporation of the province wherein the office is located. The Acts, Statutes, Bylaws et al are downloaded to the district and are corporate policies. 3) Public/Private/Partnerships (PPP) : an INTERNATIONAL ENTITY, recieving downloads from a "FOREIGN" Corporation; United Nations, WHO/World Health Organization, WEF/World Economic Forum et al. This is also a de-facto, un-lawful jurisdiction with NO legal grounds to the taxation of men and women, and also requires Consent to Contract. NOTE: In British Columbia, as an example, The BC Assessment Authority is a CROWN Corporation, created in 1974 by the Corporation of British Columbia Inc., "in order to earn profit for the Government of British Columbia Inc., without jurisdiction nor contracts with the men and women of BC. NOTE: There are 3 levels of lawful, de-jure governance; Local, Provincial and Federal - each has their sphere of jurisdiction and geographical area - each has independent legislative, fiduciary, and judicial powers - NO level can legislate for the other jurisdiction NOR has the authority to operate beyond its purview These 2 questions are the most important because the answer to them will establish the personal liability through the signature/autograph put upon the documents requiring a vote. Was there full comprehension of the Oath, Declaration, or Covenant signed when entering office as a Director? Was there time to peruse any documents requiring a vote? Most often these documents are many pages long and were made over many years, by legal firms and lawyers whose signatures are NOT contained therein. Whose is? Making that signature "personally" liable for the desicions made. Was there full comprehension of the difference between the legal wording contained therein, and the knowledge of their meanings? Such as person, individual, constituent, citizen,et al. "Legalese" is a language unto itself and is the basis for most FRAUD, which in law vitiates everything. The men and women in our Regional District Office, were empowered by the men and women, to operate under, and in a jurisdiction that is de-jure, lawful, and with a fiduciary trust, to serve the men and women of our geographical area and no other. To ensure that the needs of the local men, women, and their property, were the priority and responsibility of the Regional District. So...What Office is held? Lawfuly/de-jure or unlawfully and de-facto? We require an answer, on or before __________________ No answer will be considered a tacit agreement. The office of the Regional District is held by the trust of the members of our community, the neighbours and friends who voted for positions in an office to serve the community. That's why we require proof of what oath, declaration, or covenant was given. An unalienable right and exercised dominion of The men and women Autograph____________________:___________________________ All rights reserved.

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

After being yelled at by the Mayor that this delegate's allotted time was over; this brave grandmother chose to persist with her speech, resulting in her arrest. It is worth noting that this incident occurred following the removal of the question and answer period and that the public is no longer allowed to videotape public meetings.

Mon April 1, 9 PM EST - 7 AB time Join us to discuss Judy May Griffiths being arrested by DRPS https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca 01:51 So is this how you normally trespass people that are already walking out? She's already walking out. Why did you grab onto her? Can you stop hurting me? 02:02 Can you stop hurting me? 3 -6 -9 -5? 3 -6 -9 -5. Can I have your guys's badge numbers, please? 02:13 - 4075. - 4075. - 4070, man. - And you, sir? - 3971. - 3971. That was totally, that you guys didn't have to do that. Seriously? 02:26 Where is she going? What police station? Oh, it's a trespass. They felt the need to do that to someone they're trespassing. - Thank you. I Was watching Yeah, 02:38 so you give her a chance to walk to her car did you give her a chance to walk to her car? She would have walked she would have walked to her car Unfucking believable

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca scource https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3gF7ULVrl4 This short film is part of 8 short, testimonial films, on the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois.) The Iroquois are embarking on an historic project about the 500-year history of the Iroquois, their relationship with Europe and America and their prophesies that, if heard, can help us navigate the oncoming changes due to climate change. This series of short films is done via their testimony, and creates the space for the Iroquois to tell their story as they strive to uphold the traditions and the legacy of their people while also protecting the central tenents of their people and their relationship and care for the Earth. This series was created by Tree Media in collaboration with Oren Lyons, Sid Hill and the Haudenosaunee. This series was created with the support of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation and with the support of Executive Producer Oliver Stanton. For more information: http://www.digitalwampum.org and http://www.treemedia.com

Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8

https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca

pissed of grama,grama,gramas,dallas hills,constitutional conventions,mayors,pogg,councillors,de fact,de jure,lawful,clear field doctrine,love,truth,facts,corruption,corporation,canada,provinces,municiplaity,deputations,mother,father,live birth,cra,taxes,by laws,town,community,off grid,coop

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca Scource https://rumble.com/v4lb65u-2024-the-year-of-self-determination.html

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca source https://rumble.com/v4lb65u-2024-the-year-of-self-determination.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tekore

Wally Dove is one of Canada’s more persistent anti-government activists. Arguably, he is also one of the most successful. Back in 2004 he and Sonya Zenz (relationship unclear) were charged with tax evasion, conspiracy to evade taxes, and false partnership claims. This led to two reported decisions: R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 31861 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1hxgc R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 45964 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1jdl6 In the first case Wally argued that the accused had not committed tax evasion because there was no such thing as the Income Tax Act. Justice O’Connor put it this way (para. 1): … Mr. Dove seeks an order dismissing the charges “because there is no law called the Income Tax Act, Chapter 1 (5th Supp.) R.S.C. 1985, as amended”. In the alternative, he seeks an order requiring the Crown attorney “…to place before the Court, the Income Tax Act…, the very act which the charges in this matter have been laid against the Applicant, by producing a certified copy from the Clerk of the Parliaments”. Dove tried and tried to get a certified copy of the Income Tax Act – he and others phoned government agencies, all in search of the One True Act. The Law Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerk of Parliament, and CCH Canadian Limited. No luck. Ergo, if no official copy of the Income Tax Act exists, it can’t really be a law – and the offences are nullities! And the judge rejected Wally’s application: [4] I disagree with his position. The solution to his supposed dilemma is simple. However it is one he has chosen to ignore. In response to his letter to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Colette R. Charlebois of that office replied on July 28, 2004: The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the custodian of the original Acts of Canada and on whose behalf this office prepares certified copies, can only respond to a request that specifies the Act required to be certified with a full citation (i.e. chapter no. and year of statute) to the Statutes of Canada. If only a portion of an Act is to be certified, it should be identified by section number as well as by the full citation. [5] Ms. Charlebois explains that upon payment of a nominal per page fee, the certified copy requested will be provided. She also provides other suggestions for obtaining copies of public statutes, from local bookstores or from the Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada. The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel gave substantially the same answer and advice to friends and supporters of Mr. Dove in response to similar requests, which responses are contained in his application materials. [6] Mr. Dove and his supporters have simply failed to avail themselves of the offer to deliver certified copies of the Act or portions of it upon their advising the Clerk what parts of the very voluminous statute they wish certified, i.e. chapter and section numbers, together with a prescribed nominal fee. I am confident they will receive a certified copy upon compliance with this procedure. [7] I am satisfied the Income Tax Act is a lawfully passed and constitutionally valid statute of Canada. [8] Mr. Dove’s application for a declaration that the Income Tax Act does not exist is dismissed. On to judgment #2! This time Wally and Sonya each have lawyers. The accused made an application to stay the charges they faced and … they win! Freedom! So what was the key to their having defeated the C[C]RA? Simply put, delay. Wally and Sonya successfully argued that the delay in their trial had been so great that it was contrary to justice for the proceeding to continue. In total, it had taken 65 months to reach trial, with 108 appearances. As a consequence the judgment does not directly address whether Wally and Sonya were, in fact, guilty, but it does lay out a little of what they were up to. Both Wally and Sonya were accountants had had set up a partnership that allegedly was structured to evade tax. The scheme was based around an obsolete software package that had been purchased for $8,700, but was valued at $2.85 million. The scheme was to depreciate the software and offset income: para. 4-7. The Crown argued that Wally had engaged in “antics” and those were a substantial cause for delay (paras. 26-27): … The crown attorney argued that the manner in which he conducted his defence, most particularly during the 30 month preliminary inquiry was obstreperous, nonsensical and largely a waste of everyone’s time. Some of the time spent at the preliminary inquiry dealt with motions by Dove respecting matters that would not have been advanced by competent counsel on his behalf. For example, he moved to have the court exclude Ms. Lynn Watson, the chief investigator, from the court. The court had ruled at the outset that she was exempt from the order excluding witnesses. He argued at some length that “…the Crown was using this court for criminal purposes…”, allegedly compelling witnesses “…to give evidence against their will.” Of course, the witnesses had been served with proper subpoenas and had little choice about giving evidence. He sought to have the charges dismissed on grounds he was not one of the persons named in the indictment. He took the position he had copyrighted his name and sold it. He also took the position that he was a member of the “Nishwinobi” Nation and that, as an aboriginal person, the court had no jurisdiction over him. He presented no evidence that he is aboriginal, nor that the Nishwinobi Nation even exists, nor why the court would not have jurisdiction to hear these criminal charges against him. He wrote lengthy letters to crown counsel, the investigator, and the preliminary inquiry judge demanding compensation for alleged wrongs, including using his copywrited name without his permission. On several occasions the court adjourned briefly, usually for no more than an hour or two, to permit Dove to consult with duty counsel. … Both Wally and Sonya argued they were substantially harmed by these delays. For Sonya she ran up a ton of debts and had a hard time finding work: para. 54. Wally suffered even more. Before trial he and his wife had owned two houses and lived a comfortable lifestyle, but instead had run into debt to continue this lawsuit: para. 53. But that was not all (para. 52): Dove suffered physical and emotional stress over and above that expected and associated with any accused person awaiting trial on criminal charges. The extensive delays in this matter resulted in his becoming depressed, according to his wife and his doctor. Dr. Rick Lindall performed a psychological assessment of Dove and gave evidence of his findings and treatment of him. He said, “Mr. Dove also had an elevated score on the Major Depression scale, within in (sic) the Severe Syndrome scales… Mr. Dove reported that he continues to experience psychological/emotional difficulties as a direct consequence of the lawsuit. The symptoms he experiences include: Anxiety, depression, irritability, anger, frustration, apprehensions about health, somatic problems, changes in sleep pattern, diminished libido, disturbing dreams, marital stress, fatigue, and a compromise in cognitive functioning due to stress. The psychological test findings indicate a significant level of affective distress for Mr. Dove in terms of anxiety and depression…” See Ex. 29. Dr. Warsi, another physician with whom he consulted, said, “He experienced an episode of vasovagal syncope in Dec. 2003…” See Ex. 30. … Curiously, litigation on the Dove/Zenz con was still going on as late as last year! In February the Tax Court of Canada refused to permit a constitutional challenge of an aspect of an audit of Dolores Romanuk (Romanuk v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 58: http://canlii.ca/t/fq9wf) who had been one of the subscribers to the software depreciation scam. The gears grind slow at times here in Canada… So, now living free and easy, would Wally make his life afresh and anew? Well, not really. First Wally hooks up with David-Kevin: Lindsay, and in R. v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (http://canlii.ca/t/1pwgv) provides affidavit evidence on the non-existence of the Income Tax Act. Yep, basically the same argument. Still doesn’t work. So what else do we know about Wally? Well, among other things, Dove claims to be a former auditor of the Canada Revenue Agency, at the time named the Canada Customs Revenue Agency. But he defected, as a “deeply religious man”, given the disturbing things he had witnessed. A lot of the accounts of his time with the CCRA seem to have disappeared off the net, but here are some I found: https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=9418