CANADIANS NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT CANADA’S HISTORY

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240
Canadians Need to be Educated About Canada’s history

Show more

Constitutional Conventions
Canadians need to be educated about Canada’s history – this is absolutely key if the people of the Canadian provinces have any chance of taking control of their lives and what belongs to them.
Use the FLYER to help educate yourselves and others to the Solution. http://ConstitutionalConventions.ca
“Constitutional Conventions web site has all the information”

To understand where we are, we must first understand how we got here…

Deep research has unearthed key events, which have both created and hidden the truth of what Canada is, and how you are governed. (Under a Dictatorship unaccountable to We The People)

Event: From the 1700s into the next century, England and France were tense partners representing both Upper and Lower Canada.

General Wolfe’s death in the final battle on the Plains of Abraham in 1759, secured victory for England, the prize ultimately known as, ‘Canada INC ’.

The Treaty of Paris joined the formerly British controlled Upper Canada with France’s Lower Canada into the French legal entity – a Corporation Sole, the ‘Province of Quebec’.

The amalgamation process from 1759 through 1763 seated the first British Governor General within that Corporation Sole, which in 1787 amalgamated all of ‘Canada’ enabling Britain to seat a Governor General to rule over their Colonies known then as: the ‘Province of Canada’ and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

For 80 years between 1787 and 1867, the British placed many Governors General into the Corporation Sole. Issuing Letters Patent, the British Monarchy thereby proclaimed that Governor Generals held the ‘power’ to create and control the government of Canada, as a British Colony.

Event: Delegates from Canada had no part in drafting the British North America Act, March 29, 1867, and no certified copy of this act was brought back to Canada by the delegates.

The Act was drafted by Lord Thring, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

It is not a Constitution for it constitutes nothing.

It simply emphasizes the power of the Governor-General to appoint and remove a Privy Council to ‘aid and advise’ him and to state that the Governor-General has the power to pass an ‘order-in-council’ by himself individually as the case requires. ( An ‘order-in-council’ is equal to an Act of Parliament.)

One score and two years later the Interpretations Act, 1889, was passed, stating that Canada is a Colony.

This gives the lie to the story of Confederation and brands it as a reductio ad absurdum. ( disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion (the carrying of something to an absurd extreme) Another recent absurdity is that a House and Senate of British Subjects debating the adoption of a Flag and Anthem.

You say you have never heard of this before!

You are not alone in this.

The ‘Dominion of Canada’ meant the British Empire would retain their prize, the Governor General was then able to control all of Canada.

John A. MacDonald, knighted as Sir John A., was ultimately a traitor to the people he represented in Canada. Joining the British mainland colonies, they created the Dominion – Canada East, now Quebec; Canada West, now Ontario; along with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Event: The year, 1868. Through their Royal Charter established in 1670 by King Charles 2nd, the privately held Hudson’s Bay Company employed land usage west of Quebec and Ontario, then known as Rupert’s Land.

In 1868, British Parliament created the ‘Rupert’s Land Act’ to allow the Hudson’s Bay Company to sell use-of-land back to the Monarch, Queen Victoria. The following year, Hudson’s Bay Company finalized the transaction by signing the “Deed of Surrender”. In 1871 Queen Victoria transferred the use of those lands to the ‘Dominion of Canada’, operated by the Governor General to settle the land and create the western provinces, the allodial title would be held by the Court in Chancery for the British Empire until 1931.

Event: The year, 1901. With Queen Victoria’s death, the repeal of Section 2 of the BNA Act came into force, deliberately leaving the Dominion of Canada without a Monarch. To this day the BNA Act repeal of Section 2 has never been re-enacted and the only Monarch it applies to is Queen Victoria.

Event: The year, 1931. British Parliament passed the ‘Statute of Westminster’ allowing their Dominions to act independently. This would allow the said Dominions to federate and create their own Constitutions.

Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa did – Canada did not.

Why didn’t Canada federate?

What does it really mean for us as “Canadians” today?

Follow the money… to learn how certain forces active even today, were determined not to surrender their cherished positions of power. Continuing by way of deception, these forces kept alive the illusion of ‘Canadian Confederation’ and ‘Sovereignty’. This deliberate illusion continued throughout various iterations of the BNA Act, later called the “Constitution Acts” of 1940, 43, 49, 60, 65, 74, 75 and finally, 1982.

Event: The year, 1946. King George VI appointed a Governor General to Canada. In 1947, he commanded the Parliament of Canada to create a commission to write Letters Patent for his Governor General, he then commanded Prime Minister Mackenzie King to sign the new “Letters Patent” on his behalf. The letters patent references the BNA act, 1867 “Letters Patent” enabling the Governor General to give Royal assent to the Income Tax act 1948.

The Governor General sits in Ottawa and his Lieutenant Governors sit in each of the provinces – to report not to you the people, but to the “Queen in Right of Canada”. Today some statutes created by the various provincial governments or the Federal government receive Royal Accent, the positions of Lt. Governor ., GG and Queen of Canada are simply fictional figureheads with NO standing in law.

Event: 1952 the Royal Styles and Titles act is created by the Parliament of Canada for the Queen of Canada, yes that’s correct the Queen of Canada proclaims through this act, to be the Queen of Canada, not joking.

This should clear up any wonder over why at the inauguration ceremony of 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and all elected members swore allegiance – hand-upon-Bible – to the Queen of Canada and not to the People of Canada. You may now have realized why.

But wait, how does this work… according to the Statutes Law Revisions Act of 1893, Section 2 of the BNA act, 1867 was repealed, so what Queen?

It’s time to discover the far-reaching impact against all of us!

Event: The year, 1982. To prevent people from discovering the illusion, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his Cabinet created the ‘Canada Bill’, delivering directly to the self-styled ‘Queen of Canada’, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, for her delivery of it to the British Parliament to thereby pass it as the “Canada Act”, 1982.

Trudeau would “patriate” the defunct BNA act 1867, to Canada – a photocopy, the original still residing in the UK Parliamentary Archives.

Upon returning, Trudeau convinced all provinces to ratify the deception of the new ‘Constitution’. This was of the utmost of importance, without the provinces ratifying this Act of a foreign parliament it could not become Supreme Law (Law of the Sea) here on the landmass commonly known as Canada. All the provinces with the exception of Quebec signed off. Their problem, the Constitution Act was NOT ratified and has NO standing here on the landmass commonly known as Canada.

The outcome of this adventure saw Trudeau retiring from politics, leaving his mess behind to be sorted out by future politicians.

To ensure the deception was laid to rest, the “Government of Canada” knew they needed to amend ‘The Constitution Act, 1982’. There was the Meech Lake Accord of 1987, followed five years later by the Charlottetown Accord. These accords failed and the “Government of Canada” did not get what it wanted.

As both Accords failed, the federal authority in 1995 let sleeping dogs lie, pretending everything was as it should be. After all, the people of Canada had yet to figure it out.

Today, Canada is not a lawfully established Sovereign Nation.

“Constitutional Conventions” is the Solution to create an accountable government for the People by The People.

These fascinating hidden truths will be revealed.

Join The Solution, plenty to learn.

SOVEREIGN FOREVER
SHARE, LIKE & RT

Any and all information from Constitutional Conventions must be given to the original author by citing the source for original content http://constitutionalconventions.ca/

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
A beneficiary is a person (or entity) who is designated to receive the benefits of property owned by someone else.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-or-replace-ontario-birth-certificate
CIPO online

\https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en

Alberta Live Birth Cerificate

https://formsmgmt.gov.ab.ca/Public/DVS11163B.xdp

BC Live Birth Order certificates and copies

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/order-certificates-copies
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en
B PROOF OF CLAIM
A beneficiary is a person (or entity) who is designated to receive the benefits of property owned by someone else.

Rights Doc. 4

WE are all born with free will and unalienable rights.
No man or woman has jurisdiction over another man or woman without their consent.

Contract makes the law’
Consent makes the contract
Adhesion contracts are not contracts because there was no consent, they are considered as gifts.

We do not require any corporate created rights, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedom provided by the Government of Canada Corporation and/or ICCPR provided by the United Nations Corporation.
If anyone claims to have jurisdiction over, you and/or requests payment request a copy of the contract.

Government Corporations
Government Services Corporations doing business as Government of Canada and/or the government of any provinces can only create rules (statutes) that only apply to their employees, franchisees, officers and dependents. Their rules (statutes) do not apply to the people in general.
That is why the rules they create (statutes) are referred to as “public policy”.

We do not require any corporate created rights, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedom provided by the Government of Canada Corporation and/or ICCPR provided by the United Nations Corporation.
Women and men living in Canada are not subject to any Public Policies, mandates, or acts of legislation promoted by any commercial or municipal corporation for its officers and employees.
We should not vote in private corporate shareholder elections sponsored by Canada Inc., Province of _____ Inc., or any other foreign corporation.

All Acts, Bills and statutes created by the Government of Canada and/or any of the provincial governments only apply to “person”.
The definition of person in Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition on 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. In other words, if I say the basket includes apples and oranges you will not find any other type of fruit in the basket. As plainly stated in Black’s Law dictionary, anything that applies to person only applies to a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
Does not apply to men or women!

The Government of Canada and Government of all provinces are Crown for profit Corporations. The Prime Minister and/or the Premiers receive their orders from the shareholders of the Crown Corporation. They are the C.E.O.s/officers of the Crown Corporations. They carry out the orders that are relayed to them by the Governor General and/or the Lieutenant Governor.

They (politicians) are in place to take the blame for the harm that is done to the people. They are replaced every four years with someone who claims that he/she is going to right the wrongs that were created, but nothing changes they carry out the orders provided by the shareholders as the previous C.E.O.s. Four years later they are blamed and replaced.

PERSONS
All Acts, Bills and statutes created by the Government of Canada and/or any of the provincial governments only apply to “person”.
The definition of person in Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition on 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. In other words, if I say the basket includes apples and oranges you will not find any other type of fruit in the basket. As plainly stated in Black’s Law dictionary, anything that applies to person only applies to a firm, labor organization, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
Does not apply to men or women
_________________________________________________________
Name written in all capital letters
The governing book of the English language is “The Oxford Styles Manual” which sometimes refers to “The Chicago Manual of Style” also The Oxford Manual of Style. All Uppercase text, all caps, or gloss is listed in the style's manuals under “foreign - language” , named ”Ancient-Latin” or Dog Latin. All Caps are not defined or recognized in meaning. All Caps is not English although you may think you are able to read it as English it is in fact, a calculated deception to be read separated from the rest of the “Document”.

All Uppercase text has no lawful grammatical jurisdiction with common English and is a foreign language, headed under “Ancient-Latin”. (The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition, 11:144-47).
Glossa is two or more languages on a legal document. Glossa is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of a text( Black’s Law Dictionary page 621 5th Edition)

“Glossa” is also used to conceal or confuse the real facts in order to confuse, in order to gain tacit consent.

A name written in all capital letters is written in dog Latin or is known as systemic text “a thing” created by the employees of the crown corporation, Therefore the Crown Corporation owns the creation. If you claim that the name written in all capital letters, is, you. You are admitting you are the property of the Crown Corporation (a slave).
Cestui Que Vie Trust 's beneficiary is the name in all capital letters which is the property of the Crown Corporation, it is not you.
All governments (corporations) and businesses such as banks and others that write your name in all capital letters are committing constructive fraud and conversion. (Engaged in criminal activity)

___________________________________________________
City, Municipality, Village et al Address Date
TO: Mayor, CAO, CEO, Councillors et al
FROM: The men and women living therein,
The enclosed documentation:
1) Proof of Incorporation of the following entities; from Dunn & Bradstreet or EDGAR Search U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Note: the following are government services corporations’ (dba( "doing business as,")

Government of Canada, EDGAR (CIK 0000230098) ; Government of British Columbia, EDGAR (CIK 0000836136) and (CIK 0000014306) ; Government of Alberta, EDGAR (CIK 0000810961) ; Government of Saskatchewan, EDGAR (CIK 0000203098) ; Government of Manitoba, EDGAR (CIK 0000826926) ; Ontario, EDGAR (CIK 0000074615) ; Quebec, EDGAR (0000722803) ; Province of New Brunswick, EDGAR (CIK 0000862406) ; Province of Nova Scotia, EDGAR (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 which is corporate policy when doing commerce.

* Seek legal clarification and written proof to the contrary.
This letter comes with the enclosed documents to ascertain the jurisdiction within our council, in which official positions are being held . Depending on the Oath, Declaration, or Covenant signed upon entering office, the positions may be operating under the "Color of Law," in a De-Facto, Un-lawful and thus ultra vires standing. This holds personal liability for anything signed on behalf of the people.

There are 3 possible jurisdictions:
A) Government Office: a PUBLIC OFFICE institution with full legal authority and jurisdiction to taxation, schools, infrastructure, peace keeping, hospital, courts, et al. as services, and needs of the local men and women therein.
B) Having as the "Trustee" full fiduciary control of the "Trusts" set up to care for the local needs.

De-jure/ lawful
B) Non-Governmental Office, (NGO): a PRIVATE CORPORATE OFFICE, without the legal authority or jurisdiction to taxation. This entity provides "Service Contracts," which requires contracts and consent to contract by those involved in the services. It's known as "Body Corporate," and serves "Incorporated Inhabitants." Did the men and women give consent to be incorporated? That's called FRAUD. Who is the "Head of Council" or "Global Mayor?" (“A created fiction” The Executive Control and Authority comes from the Corporation of the Province wherein we reside, and to which your office would receive the Acts, Statutes, Bylaws et al directly, through downloads from the corporation and are corporate policies not district policies.

De-facto/ un-lawful/FRAUD
C) Public/Private/Partnerships, (PPP): an International Entity one which downloads "FOREIGN," Corporate policies, UN/United Nations, WEF/ World Economic Forum, WHO/ World Health Organization et al. In this position there is also no legal authority or jurisdiction to taxation. Consent to contract is a legal requirement to contract with the men and women. Did the men and women consent to Foreign Corporate Policies and occupation in the community without knowledge or consent? Are the United Nations Sustainable Goals/SDG's, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 policies being implemented? Who has fiduciary control over the local Trusts as their Trustee? Who is the "Head of Council," and "Council of the Whole." “A fiction”

De-Facto, un-lawful/FRAUD
These are jurisdictional questions that are important to ascertain because through the stroke of a pen, a man or woman is being put into extreme personal liability for the agreements and infrastructures signed on to.

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of Lawful/de-jure/jurisdictions
LOCAL, PROVINCIAL, and FEDERAL
- Each has their sphere of lawful 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

We the people have come to ascertain for ourselves the jurisdiction WE are in because the last few years have shown us that something has gone horribly awry at the local level. We the people voted for positions of service to the local jurisdiction. Was there comprehension of the meaning of the oath, declaration or covenant sworn, upon taking office? Was time given to properly peruse any documents to sign and vote on? Many of these documents were written over many years, by legal firms and lawyers, whose signatures are not within the documents...whose are! They contain legalise, a language unto itself, and is the basis for how most FRAUD has occurred. Words like person, individual, inhabitant, resident, citizen, et al have a completely different meaning in these documents.

FRAUD vitiates everything.
We the people intend on restoring Peace, Order, and Lawful Governance should our suspicions prove correct. We require a response by ________________________________ and expect such from our elected officials.
No man or woman has jurisdiction over another man or woman without their consent. Contract makes the law, and thus consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. No response is considered tacit agreement.

______________________________________________________
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 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 hear-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? These matter!
?- 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, receiving 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 decisions 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?

Lawfully/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.
The men and women of __________________

_________________________________________________________
Notice of Demand and Trespass
Proof of Jurisdiction and Contract

Proof of Claim
It has come to our attention, the concerned men and women, that our Educational Institutions, whose service to us is the education of our sons and daughters (hereafter named as our "property") has implemented the SOGI 123 Program without a consent to contract.
HISTORY; this program began in 2007 through the ARC Foundation. A private foundation based in Vancouver, British Columbia Inc. Other corporations involved in the funding are; British Columbia Ministry of Education Inc.; British Columbia Teachers Federation Inc.; University of British Columbia Inc., and through private donations( gifts from registered charities also corporations), and the corporation of Canada Inc.

Contract makes the law, consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls on the claimant.

Documents included herein:
- Proof of the incorporation of Government of Canada Inc., Government of British Columbia Inc.
- Copy of the "CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE", a 1942 court case, accepted worldwide because it's corporate, commerce law.

Clearly stating the requirement of contracts
Governments lose their sovereignty when they become corporations, thus no different than Canadian Tire using Canadian Tire money.
- Copy of the definition of "GLOSSA", pertinent in this matter because it's a matter of concealment, meant to confuse using "text" to corrupt the real facts in order to gain tacit consent. There's no statute of limitation on fraud.

- Our Mayoral, Councillor, and Regional Districts are also incorporated through the removal of many of the municipal powers in 2004 with the Local Government Act incorporated into the Community Charter, prior to this; the local mayor had full de-jure and lawful jurisdiction, in relation to our schools.

- Copy of the definition of the All Capital Identity, created with the "Birth Certificate," a fiction, constructive fraud and conversion.
- Copy of the 10 Points of Contract Law, made simple for comprehension on this matter.
- Copy of the 12 Presumptions of Court. Included for the comprehension of status.

Fundamentally, the fraud upon our property when born, vitiates any Board jurisdiction to the ownership of our property. We, the men and women who created them, own them. "He who creates owns!" A maxim in law Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who have positions on the Board to cease and desist the SOGI 123 Program which is an infringement upon the property known as our sons and daughters. Failure to do so as corporate entities, through Contract Law, we intend on exercising our jurisdiction, as is our right, to the fullest extent upon the men and women personally sitting on the Board.

We strongly suggest a consultation with a lawyer, who by the way wrote this mess. "Praetextu legis injusta agens duplo puniendus"
We the People DO NOT require legal Re-presentation in this matter because we're well aware of the 12 Presumptions of Court. I doubt any lawyer will be willing to assist the men and women on the Board, regardless of the facts, because through their: legalize they do deceive.
Be it therefore noted, with the documents contained herein, that our claim of proof of contract and the jurisdictional fraud, put against us and our property is considered a trespass. It is the duty of men and women to discuss these delicate matters with our property within our own jurisdiction. We are not against the health and wellbeing of another's property, within their jurisdiction, rather not in the educational setting.
We the People, regarding our property in the care of the educational system, again, reiterate, and declare that the burden of proof falls on the claimant. Consider the response with wisdom and discernment since we voted men and women into what we thought was a Educational Office not a Corporate Office.

We require no more than 7 days for implementing the redressing of the trespass against our property, with the immediate removal of any and all literature, electronic or written, devices, toys (we use the word with baited breath) et al in relation to the SOGI 123 PROGRAM post haste. For it was through corporate policies, without contractual consent, that the trespass has been made against our property thus creating this claim against those men and women on the Board personally. Furthermore, do not be deceived into thinking that the registration of our property into the corporation rather than an educational institution voids any responsibility on the part of the men and women on the Board, as it was done in fraud. Again we'll state that fraud vitiates everything.

In all fairness to the men and women on the Board, our neighbours, not the corporations involved, perhaps unaware of the situation mentioned above and the personal liability for this trespass, We the People will support the men and women in this matter of remedy, because we trusted that their service, while sitting on the Board, was to serve our property with a lawful education.
No response will be considered a tacit agreement.
Sincerely and without prejudice or malice
We the People
Autograph_______________________:________

__________________________________________________________
Statement of Claim

Taxation
Between the Corporation of ______________________________________
And the noted particulars on the documents included herein.
The above corporation has not proved jurisdiction, consent to contract, nor provide proof of a contract to claim the monies expected in taxation, hence tacit agreement to this claim.
Who claims this debt be true, who claims this debt to due? Contract makes the law, consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls on the claimant.

Three requirements were made in writing to the Corporations Finance Minister to provide said proof, and are included in this document. Furthermore, copies of the Clearfield Doctrine, EDGAR # for the Corporation involved, Regina-v-John Anthony Hill 12 May, 2011 at Southwark Crown Court, Case # T20107746, (the Queen declared, "Lawfully NOT valid Monarch, hence Charles the III too),and "Glossa," (see Black's Law) corrupts the essence of the text presented on your documents.

This refusal of consent to contract extends from this day forward, as noted with receipt of this document, until such a date in the future when there is a de-jure government upon the landmass commonly known worldwide as Canada, British Columbia, et al. Autograph _________________________:___________________________
Dated this day

_______________________________________________________
Proof of Claim
Re: Property Tax; Contract and Proof of Consent to Contract
Between the Corporation of ___________________________________________________ and
_____________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the property registered as;
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
It is required and incumbent upon the Corporations Minister of Finance, to provide proof of jurisdiction as a corporation, to taxation without full disclosure of the facts, and consent to contract, as per contract law.
See: The Clearfield Doctrine;
Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 363
Syllabus
CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. et al.
v.
UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI to the CIRCUIT COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 490 Argued February 5, 1943 Decided March 1, 1943(and accepted worldwide when conducting commerce)

Further to the above noted court case, this requirement will be expected within 7 days receipt of this claim for proof of the jurisdictional obligation by the corporation to taxation to the property noted herein.
Who claims this debt be true, who claims this debt be due? Contract makes the law, consent makes the contract. The burden of proof falls on the claimant.

Property Taxes have been paid previously without consent to contract, due to the fraud perpetrated without full disclosure of the fact that the corporation mentioned herein, was not a lawful government with the de-jure jurisdiction to taxation, thus Ultra-Vires. Rather, a corporation whose name included the words "government," which is fraud based on Black's Law Dictionary, any edition.
No response will be confirmation of a tacit agreement to the above.
Thanking you in advance,
Autograph:
_________________________:_____________________________
Dated this day: ______________________________________

______________________________________________________
STATEMENT of CLAIM
Date:_____________________
STATE of TITLE CERTIFICATE:
Certificate number________________________________________
Land Title Office__________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Title Number______________________________________________
Registered Owner__________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Taxation Authority__________________________________________
Description of Land__________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Charges, Liens and Interests_____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Proof of contract is required to provide evidence of any claim made upon the aforementioned property; taxation; land use; water use; structures and buildings above, on, or below the land; any and all animals thereon; any and all chattles upon said land; et al, provide proof of any contractual obligation having been made with respect to said land.

No man or woman has jurisdiction over another man or woman without their consent. Contract makes the law, and thus consent makes the contract.

The burden of proof falls on the claimant.

(See: Regina-v-John Anthony Hill 12 May, 2011 at Southwark Crown Court, Case # T20107746, in which the Queen was declared to be a "Lawfully NOT Valid Monarch." Hence, neither is Charles the III)
(See: Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 363, Syllabus. Clearfield trust Co.et al. v. United States, Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.No. 490. Argued February 5, 1943 Decided March 1, 1943 ; and accepted worldwide when conducting commerce)
The requirement to provide Proof of Contract within this Statement of Claim, is expected within ____________days from receipt of the documentation herein.
No response will be considered a tacit agreement to the above.
Autograph_________________________:_______________________

:GLOSSA: ~ The 'Born-Date' Vs. the 'Registration-Date'
Does your Birth Certificate identify YOU as TWO people, not one?

(You is plural, one and another)
Have you ever wondered why your SURNAME is written using the ALL UPPERCASE TEXT?

Put simply, 'you' are using a ‘Legal’ name and this is fraud.

See the ‘name’ is actually split up into separate entities – The Christian-name and The ‘Surname’. You register these names to the Crown Corporation LTD. as their Property by your Birth Certificate which is given a bond number. Your physical value is used
as collateral for these bonds allowing the United Kingdom LTD. to take out loans from private Banks, such as 'Bank of England' and profit is made by way of legal fines (Acts & Statutes), bills and taxation. – Hence money is no longer backed by Gold or Silver, but by our physical value or man power.

The UNITED KINGDOM LTD is a privately owned Corporation-ship. And corporations are considered ‘ships’ and they are governed under the law of the sea, known as Maritime Law. There is no real 'ship' but a 'document-vessel' – which in our case was our Birth Certificate
Created by the Doctor when s/he ‘docked’ you.

TAKE NOTICE

Whenever you encounter the Legal Document (document-vessel) you will notice that your surname (or sometimes all of your names) will be written using the ALL-UPPERCASE TEXT.
This is no coincidence - the ALL UPPERCASE text is not defined or recognized in The Oxford Styles Manual, (the governing book of the English language) – meaning that although you may be able to read it as English, it is in fact,

NOT English. The all CAPS or Gloss can be found within the 'Oxford Styles Manual', under 'foreign-languages', named 'Ancient-Latin'
The main place this ALL-UPPERCASE text is found to be defined as a language, is when American Sign Language (ASL), a signing language used for the deaf, is written.
ASL can be defined in the book ‘The Chicago Manual of Style’ under the foreign-languages header: American Sign Language (ASL) compound signs, 10.152 and ‘glosses, 10.147’.

Thus, defining this text as a foreign language

Further going on to say that when written, it has no 1-to-1 correspondence with any other languages on the document.
The all CAPS or Gloss is also found in the 'Oxford Styles Manual', under foreign-languages, 'Ancient-Latin', however as the all caps UK LTD is registered in [Washington D.C[, they seem to be using the 'Chicago Manual of Style' , not the Oxford.

Putting two or more languages onto a legal document is known in law as a ‘Glossa’. Black's Law Dictionary defines: 'GLOSSA' - “It is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the text”. Meaning that by using a Glossa in a document they are trying to conceal or confuse the real facts.

If you take a second to analyze any documents that are written within the legal realm (driving license, passport, fines, speeding tickets, court orders or summons) you will rapidly realize that while most of the document will be written in normal English, most of the important details are actually in this ALL-UPPERCASE language.

Like we established earlier, the ALL-UPPERCASE text and the plain English text cannot be read as one text in a document, they have no jurisdiction over one another. You can only read one at a time. So you must read all of the English in one go, and then go back to read the ALL if you take a second to analyze any documents that are written within the legal realm (driving license, passport, fines, speeding tickets, court orders or summons) you will rapidly realize that while most of the document will be written in normal English, most of the important details are actually in this ALL UPPERCASE language.

Like we established earlier, the ALL-UPPERCASE text and the plain English text cannot be read as one text in a document, they have no jurisdiction over one another. You can only read one at a time. So you must read all of the English in one go, and then go back to read the ALLf you take a second to analyze any documents that are written within the legal realm (driving license, passport, fines, speeding tickets, court orders or summons) you will rapidly realize that while most of the document will be written in normal English, most of the important details are actually in this ALL UPPERCASE language.

Like we established earlier, the ALL-UPPERCASE text and the plain English text cannot be read as one text in a document, they have no jurisdiction over one another. You can only read one at a time. So, you must read all of the English in one go, and then go back to read the ALL-UPPER CASE.
If you take a second to analyze any documents that are written within the legal realm (driving license, passport, fines, speeding tickets, court orders or summons) you will rapidly realize that while most of the document will be written in normal English, most of the important details are actually in this ALL-UPPERCASE language.

Like we established earlier, the ALL-UPPERCASE text and the plain English text cannot be read as one text in a document, they have no jurisdiction over one another. You can only read one at a time. So, you must read all of the English in one go, and then go back to read the ALL
Soon you will realize that virtually all court orders, speeding tickets and most other legal documents actually make no sense whatsoever. They only make sense when we make the assumption that it is all plain English and we read it as one, once you take one away from the other – it renders the document useless.

Seeing as the ‘government’ is simply a privately owned Corporation, it can only impose fines and acts upon other corporations. And by tricking us to registering our names as a corporate entity and then tricking us into thinking these names are physically us, it manages to get us to represent the corporately registered name and therefore bear the burden of fines and policies.

This is a crime known as “personage”.

Hand in hand with “personage” comes a crime known as “barratry” which is knowingly bringing false claims into court- This is what police, politicians, judges are doing daily.

The Birth-Certificate, Two-Names, Two-Dates and Two-Languages?
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)
For the purposes of understanding one's legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS -Capitis Diminutio Maxima- in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards & statements, loans, mortgages, speeding & parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons etc.

While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as "To take advantage of - To use to one's own advantage."
Black's Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization)- In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of leg al attributes and qualifications.

Show less