Marcus the ex-lawyer reveals the ServantKing

[arayder]

Nations are nations and as such have greater power and authority than mere corporations, or businesses.

Nations are formed by the people who help to create and eventually ratify Constitutions which grant authority to Congresses and Parliaments. The bug man, the car manufacturing plant, department store the down the street have no such power.

CORRECT, BECAUSE THOSE ENTITIES ARE NOT THE MOTHER CORPORATION. EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES REGISTERED WITH THE MOTHER CORPORATION AND MOTHER ISSUED BIRTH CERTIFICATES. SORRY, I MEAN CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION.

I don't believe there is any basis in law for your statement. Nations aren't "mother corporations". I would ask you to cite the sections of constitutions of the western democracies which explicitly create them as "mother corporations", but that wouldn't be right since no such language exists and sending you on such a wild goose chase is hardly fair.

In the U.S. the federal government doesn't issue birth certificates and I don't believe federal law provides for the creation of business corporations. Both birth certificates and incorporation papers are created at the state level.

Incorporating a business means one is turning one's solely own business or partnership into a company formally recognized by your state and set apart from one's self or the individuals who founded the business.

This process bears about as much resemblance to the creation of a constitutional democracy as does lightning to a lightning bug.

[LordEd]

I did not say Canada and the provinces are corporations, the supreme court judges discussed it during an 1881 matter before that court.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/en/d/s ... 1881-11-14

Quotes from that case

"It is to be observed, in the first place, that the new legislative authority for the dominion is declared to be a “Parliament”—it was only a “Legislative Council and Assembly” before—and the “Queen” is eo nomine declared to be a part of that Parliament. It “consists” of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. But she is not a part of any other corporation or legislative body under that act".

"Were these powers of the provinces revoked by the federal compact which became the B.N.A. Act? On the contrary the old provinces preserved their corporate identity under confederation. A distinction must here be made between the former province of Canada and the other provinces, as those of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which entered into the federal compact under their old corporate names".

"and can it be said that they have become new corporations"?

"and vests it in the Dominion and the provinces respectively as corporations capable of holding property"

"the Act [BNA Act] deals with, not with the legal estate in such properties, divesting the Crown thereof and transferring the legal estate in some to the provinces and in some to the Dominion as corporations"

"vested in the provinces as corporations"

Then there is,

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/en/d/s ... 1979-12-21+

Further, although s. 91(1) gave the Queen the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to alter the “Constitution of Canada” except in certain expressly designated areas, it does not confer a power to amend the B.N.A. Act. The word “Canada” in s. 91(1) does not refer to Canada as a geographical unit but refers to the juristic federal unit. “Constitution of Canada” does not mean the whole of the British North America Act, but means the constitution of the federal government, as distinct from the provincial governments.

Interesting that you quote every mention of the word "corporation" in that case except this one:

We now come to the provisions respecting the provincial constitutions. They are specific; the others are general. The effect, therefore, was to create each province a body politic—a quasi corporation, as distinct from her Majesty—so that whatever rights she held individually if now vested in the provinces must have been taken away from her Majesty and given to the provinces.

That case looks extremely complicated.

[Hallow]

Let us agree that neither Canada nor the provinces are living breathing things. And the Queen, a corporation sole. The king is dead, long live the king..............what a joke

[notorial dissent]

Let's not.

[Hallow]

Why don't you enlighten me what a freeman on the land is?

SO WHAT CANADA IS? YOU ASKED FOR EVIDENCE, HERE IT IS. DEBUNK ALL YOU WISH, I CARE NOT

EDGAR Search Results: CANADA is a company.

SEC Home » Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System » Company Search » Current Page

Companies with names matching "CANADA"
Click on CIK to view company filings
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edga ... getcompany
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edga ... efilings=0

Company is defined in Blacks Law 4th Edition as so; A society or association of persons, in a considerable number, interested in a common object, and uniting themselves for the prosecution usually of some commercial or industrial undertaking, or other legitimate business.

Legislation Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, CHAPTER 21 Schedule F - "person" includes a corporation. Then the lawyer will say includes is not all encompassing. Really, so if I give a recipe that says includes this that that and this, according to a lawyer it open to interpretation to allow for the addition of other ingredient(s) to net the same result. HOW APE-ISH

Woe unto you, lawyers! By FRED RODELL Professor of Law, Yale University Written in 1939

A lusty, gusty attack on "The Law" as a curious, antiquated institution which, through outworn procedures, technical jargon and queer mummery, enables a group of medicine-men to dominate our social and political lives and our business, to their own gain.

"Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." - Luke. XI, 52

Preface
No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.

In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out.

CHAPTER I

MODERN MEDICINE-MEN

"The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science." --Charles Macklin [hocus-pocus: Verbal misrepresentation intended to take advantage of you in some way. Ya like speak to the man whose name is John Smith but put the name on paper as JOHN SMITH, my emphasis, Hallow]

In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.

Them lawyer types take proper noun names, names that identify people, places and things, e.g. Canada, John Smith, Apple, and convert them to non-sense ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. CANADA, JOHN SMITH, APPLE.

Blacks Law 4th Ed. GLOSSA VIPERINA EST QUAE CORRODIT VISCERA TEXTUS; "It is poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the text".

Perhaps they forgot the grade 3 education or deceive with intent? Or perhaps their eyes are glossaed over. The Canadian Styles Manual used by Public Works and Government Services of Canada, as do school books, acknowledge a proper noun name to be e.g. John Smith. I would post the proof here but this blog does not allow the attachment of documents.

OH! GUESS WHAT, APES ARE LEGAL PERSONS.
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... as-corpus/

I imagine the the man acting as a judge is one of those lawyer types for who else would declare such a thing but a fellow Chimpanzee? I suppose Darwin was correct when he suggested the theory that people, I mean lawyers, evolved from the Monkey.

Now I have no idea if the administrator of this blog and his cronies are lawyers but they may as well be.

[Hallow]

"The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it".

Sayeth you.

There is but one sovereign, the ever-living God. I suppose the sovereign of CANADA, QEII, is not subject to the law of gravity.

Go ahead and jump...........

[wserra]

feel free to delete my access.

See? Aren't you glad we didn't?

Still, you really don't need to repost the same stuff. Missing quotes aren't enough of a reason. That's what the "Edit" function is for.

OH! GUESS WHAT, APES ARE LEGAL PERSONS.

Well, no. Had you actually been able to read, I'm sure you would have been interested to find the following holding in the case that you cite: "According chimpanzees the status of legal personhood is inappropriate in that they are incapable of bearing any legal responsibilities and societal duties."

[LordEd]

Well, no. Had you actually been able to read,

Geez, that's asking for a lot out of the Freeman sheep. Next you'll be asking them to reason and think.

Ignore wserra, hallow. Go back to your shepherds. They'll tell you what the documents mean and what to think about them.

[LordEd]

Back to the chimps... if we have 100 freemen with typewriters and an infinite amount of time, will they eventually type something that makes sense?

[notorial dissent]

Back to the chimps... if we have 100 freemen with typewriters and an infinite amount of time, will they eventually type something that makes sense?

Oh! Oh! That's easy, NO.

[arayder]

Why would freemen type anything as long as there is a cut and paste function on their computers?

Along those lines we are hearing on this thread yet again the notion that Canada is merely a corporation.

Our friend Doazic debunked this already dismissed argument just a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nynjz7BBr00

[The Observer]

Back to the chimps... if we have 100 freemen with typewriters and an infinite amount of time, will they eventually type something that makes sense?

How about if they could just type something a chimp could understand? Something to be said about lowering the bar for FOTLs.

[notorial dissent]

On the evolutionary and IQ scales, chimps definitely rate higher than FOTL's. They're also generally nicer and better house trained.

[Burnaby49]

A Freeman guru wins in court! In front of a jury! As far as I can tell from the scant reporting on it he was acquitted entirely legitimately. When we last left Marcus he was facing criminal charges and a trial for marijuana growing. He'd lost his falconry, the passion of his life, for unrelated reasons and he was struggling alone, without a lawyer, to get off from the charges. And he did it!

A jury in Barrie delivered a not guilty verdict Oct. 17th against Wilfred Emonts of Tottenham, who in July 2012 was charged by Nottawasaga OPP who seized nearly 1,000 marijuana plants valued at approximately $475,000 from his 2nd Line residence in New Tecumseth.

http://www.madhunt.com/emonts-not-guilty-20171106.html

https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/78804 ... g-charges/

This is unique. After, Dean Clifford, Menard, Chief Rock Sino General, the Nanaimo three, and others had all tried and failed Marcus battled through and won one. However a large part of how this affects his status in the eyes of the Freeman world might depend on how he did it. It was a jury trial so no written decision. The papers give no hint of his defense apart from this;

A police officer familiar with the matter said that, during the trial, Emonts argued the plants were being grown to create hemp products, not marijuana.

But I can't see that, in itself, swaying a jury. Unless they went with nullification. If he got off on undue delay via a Jordan application;

R. v. Jordan,
[2016] 1 SCR 631, 2016 SCC 27
http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3

or because of an invalid search warrant, good for him for finding a successful defense. But it would be irelevent to any teachings he might be flogging. However just the concept that winning is possible might, to at least some slight extent, revive the moribund freeman movement. It's got nowhere to go but up! If Marcus chooses to resume promoting himself it could get very, very interesting. Perhaps Marcus, who has contributed here as Hallow, might return in triumph to enlighten us.

[Burnaby49]

My abysmal understanding of the law has already been subject to judicial review;

Not a Jordan - that would be a decision by the judge, and the jury would not be involved. Not an invalid search warrant, because again that is a decision by the trial judge. All we know is that a jury did make the call, so that means the charge(s) were tried on their factual and legal substance.

That hemp argument is, legally, a non-started. Tried and failed in the past. So, at the moment, I'm going with nullification.

[Philistine]

Hemp contains very little in the way of psychoactive ingredients. If he was growing hemp, for clothes, paper, rope, or any other of the numerous products it's suited for(it really is a great plant for many reasons), he may have had it tested and shown it was indeed hemp and not medicinal "pot".

[Arthur Rubin]

That hemp argument is, legally, a non-started. Tried and failed in the past. So, at the moment, I'm going with nullification.

Could always be the crown forgot to prove one of the elements of the offence, or perhaps what the jury believed to be one of the elements of the offence. (The latter is something like nullification....)

An intermediate post provided a possible explanation: if he was growing hemp which did not have psychoactive components, that might negate an element of the offence.

A transcript might be interesting, although expensive.

[Burnaby49]

I'd like to assume (that being a loaded word) that the substance seized was of sufficient potency to warrant a charge. But with so little information it's impossible to say. This quote;

A jury in Barrie delivered a not guilty verdict Oct. 17th against Wilfred Emonts of Tottenham, who in July 2012 was charged by Nottawasaga OPP who seized nearly 1,000 marijuana plants valued at approximately $475,000 from his 2nd Line residence in New Tecumseth.

If accurate certainly indicates a correct charge. I'd like to think the Ontario Provincial Police can tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. And $475 a plant seems high for hemp bushes, not that I have any expertise in this area.

[Philistine]

I'd like to assume (that being a loaded word) that the substance seized was of sufficient potency to warrant a charge. But with so little information it's impossible to say. This quote;

A jury in Barrie delivered a not guilty verdict Oct. 17th against Wilfred Emonts of Tottenham, who in July 2012 was charged by Nottawasaga OPP who seized nearly 1,000 marijuana plants valued at approximately $475,000 from his 2nd Line residence in New Tecumseth.

If accurate certainly indicates a correct charge. I'd like to think the Ontario Provincial Police can tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. And $475 a plant seems high for hemp bushes, not that I have any expertise in this area.

You assume too much. We don't have the evidence

[grixit]

All hail the mighty Serpent King! Hisssss!