Notice of Claim to the Corporation of “The City Corp Name”

 

Notice of Claim to the Corporation of “The City Corp Name”

 

 

1. I first : last am providing knowledge to the Executive of the Corporation of “Your City” to know that I am in peaceful possession of my property and that I have become aware of actions of “The City Corp Name” against my unalienable rights.

 

2. I am writing this letter to the CEO City Mayor’s Name , because the statutory power has indicated that you are the party that has been given the authority and powers from the Lieutenant Governor in council concerning the matter brought forth in this communication.

 

3. Whereas I understand and Claim that the Municipalities Act of Saskatchewan states that the municipal district and its persons are incorporated.

 

Saskatchewan

The Municipalities Act 2022, c.26.

 

PART I

Short Title, Interpretation and Purposes

Interpretation

2(1)

In this Act:

 

(v.1) “municipal district” means a municipal district incorporated pursuant to this Act;

 

DIVISION 2

Procedures for Establishing, Incorporating, Altering or Restructuring Petition for organized hamlet, resort village or village

55(1) A petition that is required pursuant to section 50 or 51 must:

(a)  be in the form established by the minister; and

(b)  contain the signatures of at least 30 persons who would be voters of the proposed organized hamlet, resort village or village if it were established or incorporated.

 

4. I understand that your party may not be completely aware of what is transpiring in domestic laws however according to the statutory power, Municipalities Act of Saskatchewan, I am being treated as being incorporated into the municipal district and this was done without my consent, without my knowledge.  As can be seen from Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, the Constitution of Canada is for managing the Corporation of Canada and its employee’s only.  They are “bound” by the Charter. They cannot create laws to incorporate its inhabitants.  I do not consent!

 

Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 SCR 1038, 1989

The reference in s. 32 to the "Parliament" and a "legislature" make clear that the Charter operates as a limitation on the powers of those legislative bodies. Any statute enacted by either Parliament or a Legislature which is inconsistent with the Charter will be outside the power of (ultra vires) the enacting body and will be invalid. It follows that any body exercising statutory authority, for example, the Governor in Council or Lieutenant Governor in Council, ministers, officials, municipalities, school boards, universities, administrative tribunals and police officers, is also bound by the Charter.Action taken under statutory authority is valid only if it is within the scope of that authority. Since neither Parliament nor a Legislature can itself pass a law in breach of the Charter, neither body can authorize action which would be in breach of the Charter. Thus, the limitations on statutory authority which are imposed by the Charter will flow down the chain of statutory authority and apply to regulations, by-laws, orders, decisions and all other action (whether legislative, administrative or judicial) which depends for its validity on statutory authority

5. In Canada v. Sam Lévy et Associés Inc the judge declared that any statutory power that is operating, which is limiting and abridging fundamental rights and freedoms, in order to be enforced it doesn't take a court order it's automatically within the statutory power because section 52.1 of the Charter applies and hence of no force or effect.  IF you enact a law that is against my fundamental rights and freedoms, then it was never a law from the get go!Again,the Constitution is for the Corporation of Canada, its Corporate Provinces and Corporate Municipalities.  No consent with me. No association with me.

 

Canada (Attorney General) v. Sam Lévy et Associés Inc., 2005 FC 171 (CanLII)

First, and most importantly, the Constitution is, under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, "the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect". The invalidity of a legislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from the fact of its being declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s. 52(1).  Thus, in principle, such a provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and a judicial declaration to this effect is but one remedy amongst others to protect those whom it adversely affects.

 

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART VII

GENERAL

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

 

Application of Charter

32. (1)This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b)to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

6.  I recognize and understand that the 1867 Constitution of Canada gives the Legislative Powers of the Corporation of Canada to make Laws for Governing itself and its employees.

 

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Powers of the Parliament

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada,

 

7. I recognize and understand the Supreme Court Judgement where the Supreme Court talks about Canada and it’s Geographic Area. You can clearly see that Canada is NOT a Geographical Unit but a Juristic Federal Unit, a corporation. The Corporation of Canada owns no lands!

 

Supreme Court Judgments [1980] 1 SCR 54 1979-12-21

Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House

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”

 

 

8. I recognize and understand that In the Charter 1982 is where Canada has placed the maintenance of the “Rule of Law” and that I can seek remedy…

 

Enforcement

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

9. I recognize and claim that this “Rule of Law” is found in Corporation Canada’s obligation to the signed international covenants.

 

ICCPR

Part II

Article 5

1.Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

 

10. I recognize and claim that Canada, a corporation, a Government Body, a StateParty is not only obligatory to this Natural Law but they are fully aware of it. Canada is signatory and must comply with international human rights also know as Natural Rights.

 

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

S.C. 2001, c. 27

Objectives and Application

 

Objectives — immigration

Article 3.(1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are

(a) To Permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;

 

Application

Article 3.(3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that

(f) complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory.

 

11. Whereas I claim that the Corporation Canada is signatory to international obligations us also found in the Charter…

The Constitution Act of Canada 1982

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

 

12. I understand and claim that the International Covenants forces the hand of the State Party Canada, the Corporation Canada, to ensure the rights of the living man, the choices for a living man. ICCPR=International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Corporation of Canada must include the ICCPR into it’s constitution.

 

ICCPR

Part II

Article 2.2

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenantundertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

 

13. I recognize and claim that Canada admits that its signatory to the international instruments.

Canada’s website “Canada and the United Nations human rights system”

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-united-nations-system/reports-united-nations-treaties.html#

 

Government of Canada

Reports on United Nations human rights treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Background

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was opened for signature by the UN General Assembly on December 19, 1966. It entered into force on March 23, 1976, the same year Canada became party to the ICCPR. Canada is required under the ICCPR to submit periodic reports to the UN Human Rights Committee; it has consistently submitted reports since it ratified the Covenant.

 

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP1) was opened for signature by the UN General Assembly on December 19, 1966. It entered into force on March 23, 1976, and Canada ratified it that same year.

 

14. Whereas I claim that I have NOT taken the right to be recognized as a person, incorporated into a municipality, before the law and stand upon my full lawful capacity…

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

article 16

everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

 

15. I am standing on my rights, my full lawful capacity and your party must honor my position.  Your party must respect the rule of law as it pertains to my natural rights and freedoms which are better known as human rights and freedoms.

 

In R. v. Wagner it is clear that natural law, the rule of law is in tact and must be enforced.

 

R. v. Wagner, 2015 ONCJ 66 The Rule of Law

The idea that there are certain fundamental unwritten principles that govern all members of society including legislators and which judges are expected to enforce is not particularly new. The contemporary concept of unwritten constitutional principles can be seen as a modern reincarnation of the ancient doctrines of natural law…..

 

The Chief Justice goes on to note that these rules bind the legislative, executive and judicial branches.  The debate is not so much about whether such norms exist, but what those norms are in relation to any given case where a litigant calls on such norms to his aid….

Finally, at the developing fringes of the new natural law, which goes by the name human rights, are other assertions….

It rests on the proposition that there is a distinction between rules and the law. Rules and rule systems can be good, but they can also be evil…..

 

Thus, as important as these principles may be, and as essential as it may be that in difficult cases the judge must stand against the winds and rains to uphold them….

 

 

Those unwritten principles tend to be largely replicated in the text of the constitution, with s. 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights striking me as a prime example.  Our written constitution reflects many, many influences, including the drafters’ awareness of natural law,

 

I agree with her that the “rule of law” is, quite apart from the terms of any written constitution, part of the constitutional DNA of this country and that its precepts must be abided by and must be applied by judges no matter how strong may be the prevailing winds or how challenging the social or political environment in which an issue arises.

 

16. It is my understanding and claim that the the Lieutenant Governor has granted you the capacity and ability to honor my rights and the rule of law as it pertains to human rights and freedoms.

 

17. It is my understanding and claim as an individual standing outside the corporate body owe no duty or obligation to any statutory powers including by-laws and legislative acts as stated in Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada.  The state owes a duty to protect my life and Property.

 

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.

His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

 

 

 

 

18. It is my Claim that me choose not to operate from the capacity of an incorporated officer and as such me need no approval from the executive members of such body.  Me will not submit myself to the control and regulation of the officers of the corporate body concerning my property or my home.

 

19. Whereas I understand and claim that Article 2 in the Constitution Act of Canada 1982 it is clearly defines my rights to my full lawful capacity and specifically stated in the International instruments that I may stand upon my full lawful capacity as a living man individually. Canada is in Self Governance and individuals as a rule are not “creatures of the state”.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)

1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

 

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy

of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedom

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

 

ICCPR

Article 22.1

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others.

Article 18

1.Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and FREEDOM, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

20. I understand and claim the International Covenants, our Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, our “Full Legal Capacity” is the “Supreme Law” over the Corporation of Canada…

 

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive

Trade Practices Commission

While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone,artificial persons [corporations] are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.

 

Court Judgement Supreme Court- Christie v. British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 631 (CanLII)

The rule of law embraces at least three principles.  The first principle is that the “law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power”

 

21. It is my understanding and claim that the Charter of Corporation Canada give its employees, also known as creatures of the state only limited rights and freedoms, and admits, there other rights and freedoms everyone possesses..

 

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

 

22. It is my recognition and claim that  “Corporation of Canada” MUST follow Common Law as enumerated in the International Covenants and it MUST flow through their Constitution which Governs their actions towards a living man. The Supreme Court has made it clear in case M. (A.) v. Ryan that Common Law in Canada Now Flows through the Constitution Act of 1982.

M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997  (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157,

that the common law must develop in accordance with Charter values. A Trespass in common law equals an infringement or denial of a fundamental right or freedom. (listed in the constitution act or the covenants themselves)

R. v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292, 2007 SCC 26

Since it is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that legislation will be presumed to conform to international law, in interpreting the scope of application of the Charter , a court should seek to ensure compliance with Canada’s binding obligations under international law where the express words are capable of supporting such a construction. The presumption of conformity is based on the rule of judicial policy that, as a matter of law, courts will strive to avoid constructions of domestic law pursuant to which the state would be in violation of its international obligations.

Zingre v.The Queen et al., [1981] 2 SCR 392 (Supreme Court of Canada).

It is a recognized principle of international customary law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations.

23. I understand and claim that my fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be abridged by the Corporation of Canada’s Constitution Act of Canada 1982 Article 7.

Constitution Act of Canada 1982 Article 7

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

That is, read as a whole, it appears to us that this section [s. 7 ] was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level.  A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved;  only human beings can enjoy these rights.  "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings.

24. Whereas I claim that I have NOT taken the right to be recognized as a person before the law and stand upon my full lawful capacity…

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

article 16

everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

 

25. Whereas I understand and claim that Canada agrees through the interpretation act that we’ve been incorporated as a person in the municipality within its own internal structure of statutes meant only for its employees…

Interpretation Act

R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21

Application

3 (1) In every enactment,

Every provision of this Act applies, unless a contrary intention appears, to every enactment, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act.

 

Definitions

General definitions

35 (1) In every enactment,

person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; (personne)

 

Blacks Law Dictionary 3rd Ed.

Includes - lnclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.

 

Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Ed.

"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons,

 

26. I am NOT operating from the capacity of the incorporated inhabitant to force me to be subjected to the statutory power designated enactments. This is a direct limitation and abridgment of my rights and freedoms putting me into slavery.

 

Court Judgement Supreme Court- Christie v. British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 631 (CanLII)

The rule of law, a fundamental principle of our Constitution, must mean at least two things. First, that the law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.

 

27. It is my understanding and claim as stated in Article 9 of this claim, I do not owe any duty to the state, the state’s arbitrary power is breaching my fundamental rights and freedoms and the state must protect my life and property.

 

28. Whereas I recognize and claim that my fundamental human rights and freedoms must be respected as an individual at the National and International Levels as stated in the “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”  (DRRI) and other international obligations, namely the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

 

DRRI

(1) Recognizing the right and the responsibility of individuals, groups and associations to promote respect for and foster knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels,

Declares :

 

Article 1

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.

 

 

 

Article 2

1. Each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia , by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice.

 

Article 3

Domestic law consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other international obligations of the State in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the juridical framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed and within which all activities referred to in the present Declaration for the promotion, protection and effective realization of those rights and freedoms should be conducted.

 

Whereas it is my understanding and claim that Canada is bound by the international covenants to not hold anyone in servitude and the corporation of Canada and its municipalities have unlawfully incorporated its inhabitants which have limited and abridged my fundamental right and freedoms as recognized in the international covenant according to article 8 of the ICCPR,

Article 8.2

No one shall be held in servitude.

 

29. Whereas I claim and state that the representatives of this government are under obligationnot to take actions aimed at the destruction of my rights and freedoms. The officers of Canada cannot point to domestic statutory power to justify limiting or abridging my full capacity as brought forth in the constitution act of 1982.

Zingre v.The Queen et al., [1981] 2 SCR 392 (Supreme Court of Canada).

“It is a recognized principle of international customary law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations."

30. Whereas it is my understanding and claim that taxation is for employees of the corporation of Canada and it is a well known fact that they can only ask us to contribute if we so choose ie Taxes are voluntary…

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1.2 states that all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

31. Further, I claim that I have no obligation to contribute any resources to the economic, social or cultural development of any province or the development of Canada . The executive powers of the Corporation Canada cannot force me to contribute for there is no provision to force contributions in the covenants.

Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157:

[22]-Canada’s international obligations and relevant principles of international law are also instructive in defining the right:

The content of Canada's international human rights obligations is, in my view, an Important indicia of the meaning of "the full benefit of the Charter’s protection". I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 47

Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources

32. Whereas it is my understanding and claim everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

In the Criminal Code of Canada it states that the inhabitants are incorporated,

"municipality"includes the corporation of a city, town, village, county, township, parish or other territorial or local division of a province, the inhabitants of which are incorporatedor are entitled to hold property collectively for a public purpose;

33. Whereas it is my understanding and claim everyone has the right to own property alone.  I do not want to hold my property in association with the local municipality for a public purpose. I am standing on the grounds of private ownership unassociated with anybody.

UDHR

Article 17

1.Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

34. Whereas I claim that all my property is private property and belongs to me a human being. My individual property is private and is not to be assumed to be owned by the juridical personality. All my property whether immovable or movable is under the administration of myself alone and no government agent or representative has any right or my consent to regulate or try to control my possessions.

 

35. Furthermore, I claim that I can use this Declaration to defend my private property as indicated in the Canadian Criminal Code Article 35;

Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46

Defence — property

(1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

 

 

 

35. Whereas I claim that the Corporation of Ontario has without my consent denied my fundamental right and freedom to own property alone as real property and has used my property in usury, deceit and fraud as personal property within the municipal corporation…

Ontario “Land Titles Act”

PART IV

APPLICATION FOR FIRST REGISTRATION

Applicants

 

No Consent Required

Article 31 (2)

For the purpose of an application under subsection (1), the municipality shall be deemed to be the agent of the owners and other persons having an interest in the land designated in the by-law and it is not necessary to obtain the consent of such owners and other persons to the application.

 

Criminal Code of Canada

Definitions

property includes

(a) real and personalproperty of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the titleor right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods,

public stores

includes any personal property that is under the care, supervision, administration or control of a public department or of any person in the service of a public department;

 

ICCPR

Article 22.1

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others.

 

 

 

36. Whereas I understand and claim that the Criminal Code article 794 expresses the operation of law concerning my human rights and freedoms not to be charged under a statute as a legal person

Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46

No need to negative exception, etc

794 (1) No exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law is required to be set out or negatived, as the case may be, in an information.
Burden of proving exception, etc.

794 (2) The burden of proving that an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information

 

Restatement of Organization via Affidavit (DO BE UPDATED

 

Before me, the undersigned Notary, first name last name the holder of Registration of Live Birth Number xx-xx-xxxxxx, demonstrating a credible nature and appearing to be of lawful age, by his own free will act and deed, in execution of his will and affirmation does state:

the first name last name name in use is affixed upon Registration of Live Birth Number xx-xx-xxxxxx and as of this date, i have failed to receive nor seen any evidence this first name  last name name in use serves to recognize the one using it; FIRST NAME LAST NAME is derived from this name.

as such, i hereby acknowledge and undertake the tender of this deed and deliver this receipt in absolute acceptance of this peace offering of the province of Saskatchewan as usufructuary with respect to the use of this first name last name name. And I surrender any and all adverse claim with any interests in reversion assigned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada to and for the account of Canada, for the benefit of all.

and for protection and defense of this union, Clerk of the Court for Saskatoon small claims Court is nominated and appointed as fiduciary for the usufructuary duties and Attorney General of Saskatchewan is granted right of representation with letter of administration to have and to hold, in sickness and in heath, until death do us part and let no man tear asunder.

 

37.Further, I understand and claim that the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer also known as the Head of Council and is both a Peace officer and liable to uphold this claim…

City of Toronto Act, 2006

The City

City continued

Article 125 (1) The City of Toronto is hereby continued as a body corporate that is composed of the inhabitants of its geographic area. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 125 (1).

Role of the Mayor ashead of council

Article 133 (1) It is the role of the mayor of the City, as the head of council,

(a) to act as chief executive officer of the City;

(b) to preside over meetings of council so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively;

 

Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46

peace officer includes
(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

 

As a peaceful loving, living man, I first name waive my rights to association with your corporation, and waive my rights to be recognized as a person before the law and do not wish to contribute freely to taxation…

Any further threats of legal action or attempts to force me into joinder, I shall be calling upon unincorporated officers, sheriffs and the de jure IRS to pay a friendly loving visit to the Mayor, the Chief Executive officer of the “The City Corp Name” to hold him responsible to ensure and support the lawful obligations as enumerated in this claim.

 

 

This claim is peaceful and binding.

 

: first name : last name

A living man or woman with intrinsic, unalienable rights.

 

 

 

_______________________________

 : first name : last name

Autograph

Riot

64 A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.

Punishment of rioter

65 (1) Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Neglect by peace officer

69 A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 70.

 

Whereas I understand and claim that the Criminal Code article 794 expresses the operation of law concerning my human rights and freedoms not to be charged under a statute as a legal person

Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46

No need to negative exception, etc

794 (1) No exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law is required to be set out or negatived, as the case may be, in an information.
Burden of proving exception, etc.

794 (2) The burden of proving that an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information

This statement is talking about legal rules when someone is defending themselves in court, especially in criminal cases.

          Burden of Proof: Normally, in a court case, it's the job of the prosecutor (the person trying to prove someone did something wrong) to prove their case. However, this statement is about special situations where the law provides an exception or a specific condition that could let the defendant (the person being accused) off the hook.

          Defendant's Responsibility: If the defendant wants to use one of these special conditions as a defense (like an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse, or qualification set by the law), it's their job to prove that this condition applies to their case. They have to show evidence or arguments that support their claim that this special condition should allow them to be exempt from being found guilty.

          Prosecutor's Role: The prosecutor doesn't have to prove anything about these special conditions unless the defendant brings it up first. If the defendant says, "This exception applies to me," then the prosecutor might have to argue back to show that the exception doesn't actually apply in this case. But, the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about these exceptions unless the defendant mentions them.

          Information Set Out: The last part means that even if the specific conditions or exceptions aren't mentioned in the charges against the defendant, it's still up to the defendant to bring them up and prove they apply.

So, in simple terms, if there's a special rule or exception that could get the defendant out of trouble, it's up to the defendant to prove that this rule should help them. The person trying to prove the defendant guilty doesn't need to worry about these special rules unless the defendant brings them up as part of their defense.

 

so what would be the layman's 3 word title for this

"Defendant Proves Exceptions"

Ultra Vires

The modern technical designation, in the law of corporations, of acts beyond the scope of the powers of a corporation, as defined by its charter or act of incorporation.

Act is "ultra vires" when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstances or for any purpose.

By doctrine of "ultra vires" a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is un- lawful.

While the phrase "ultra vires" has been used to designate, not only acts beyond the express and implied powers of a corporation, but also acts contrary to public policy or contrary to some express statute prohibiting them, the latter class of acts is now termed illegal, and the "ultra vires" confined to the former class.