The Statute of Westminster with solicitor Marilyn Burns

I was part of an entertaining live show with solicitor Marilyn Burns of http://www.youtube.com/@AlbertaUnfiltered on HHGRadio this evening. The topic of discussion was the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and its implications on the land mass commonly referred to as "Canada." It was supposed to be a moderated debate, but we got blind sided a bit.
First off, we appreciate that Marilyn took the time and accepted the invitation to the debate. Believe it or not, she is actually the first solicitor to have done so! Thank you, Marilyn.
However, it quickly became obvious that Marilyn had an agenda - and that agenda was to attack, to discredit, and to smear. I had prepared my documents for a respectful debate and discussion of facts. I was not interested in a conversation that showed mostly disrespect and mockery while repeating legal opinions that have no standing in law.
Sadly, Marilyn brought absolutely nothing of substance to the table. A few times, she diverted, distracted, and changed course abruptly - tactics that are used to confuse the audience so that the listener cannot follow along and forgets the actual topic of discussion. Clever! But I think quite a few people in the chat noticed that.
Marilyn did not engage with highly important facts regarding sovereignty, land ownership, real constitutional documents such as the 1763 Letters Patent (not fake "constitutions" like the BNA Act) and the all-important definition of the Crown Office, the latter having been customary since the 16th century and backed up by numerous court cases (you'd think as a solicitor she'd know the court cases...). Instead, she kept repeating legal (legal = statutory, not based in law) opinions that are contradicted by the facts stated in the source documents.
We wish her all the best with her referendum and her corporate, statutory (unlawful) plans to ensure that the People do not find out the truth. After all, in her capacity she must have sworn an Oath of Allegiance to none other than "His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors" which in accordance with established legal doctrine, and confirmed in numerous court cases, is in fact none other than the Crown Office. :)
Someone out there is starting to get scared of us and the facts that we have presented. Otherwise, they would not see the need to attack, mock and smear. Good! The best is yet to come!