HomeF3The values and oath of the Ontario Provincial Police

Comments

The values and oath of the Ontario Provincial Police — 2 Comments

  1. I hope I can shed a bit of light on this.
    The Dominion of Canada is a constitutional state, where each individual has the right to be free. This implies one is not free until the right is claimed.
    In the 20’s and 30’s some major changes took place in the law regarding what a person was. Up until this point only men could be persons. This has to do with entering a public office and being a public officer under the public trust. Some women demanding “suffurage” or the right to vote demanded that women be recognized as persons also. McClung was one of the “Famous 5,” a group of women who in 1927 petitioned the Supreme Court of Canada to have women declared “persons” and therefore eligible for public office as senators. The court decided against the women, but the British Privy Council — at the time Canada’s highest appeal court — overturned the decision, officially declaring that the term “person” included women. person=”eligible for public office”

    This was just a precursor to what was to come in the “NEW DEAL”. The governments as a result of the Depression decided they were going to take care of the people. The problem was they had no right to interfere with the people’s lives, their liberty or their property.
    In order to overcome this trespass upon a private individual, they had to make it so one consented to be part of the public through a legal fiction called a person. In order to accomplish this the democratic governments had already begun recording the people’s birth in what is called a statement of birth. This is a title to a Christian estate under God. It is held by the Crown who is the trustee of this title. Upon application for a “birth certificate” an organization is birthed into the public trust and the one holding the certificate becomes the registered agent for the government agency. The trustee now become the principal of the agency. The individual now had the status of a child. This is how they interfered in the individual’s right of dominion over his life, liberty and property.
    Since the constitutional state is a common law jurisdiction, they had to overcome property rights also. It is my belief that all the provincial governments and the Canadian government registered as corporations with the District of Columbia, allowing them to use municipal jurisdiction, which is foreign law to the constitutional state.
    So in order to participate in the public trust, an individual had to give up his right of dominion in exchange for government benefits and privileges. This split the title and is why you only hold certificates of title (9/10 possession) and the government hold legal title (the other 1/10).

    So in short, there are two Canada’s, one is constitutional, the other corporate, hence two oaths. If they can prove you are participating in the democratic public, then they use public policy on you as you are under the corporate state. If you have overcome the assumption and presumption you consent to be bound by public policy, then you have all your rights intact and are standing on the constitutional state.
    The best way to “overcome” a “promise to perform” is to sign above your autograph all your contracts “without prejudice”. Here is a link to secure your rights by correcting your status with a passport signed correctly so you make no promises to perform under public policy as a person.
    http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html
    Read pages 10-13 for the power it has. The best way to apply for a passport is to use the statement of birth. All the places you sign must be qualified “without prejudice by: autograph”
    You may need to read this also to GET it.
    Book: Without Prejudice, Sovereign Covenant by William Dixon

    I should add that a person is defined was defined in the municipal act as an organization and a person and that an organization always includes Her Majesty. That is until they removed it. Her Majesty is the registered owner of all legal names. If you claim to have a legal name, then they give you the liability, even though it is not yours. The only title you can claim in the public or any court of law is “I am merely the registered agent for Her Majesty’s organization”.

    • Hi Troy, thanks for your comment. It is worth looking into. I can’t say I follow what you’re saying so I would need to study it. I replied to your other comment here. http://canadianliberty.com/here-is-the-oath-for-ontario-lawyers-hold-yourself-to-it-and-defend-rights-and-freedoms-share-your-contact-information/ – A couple of points: 1) My view on this when I write is that the rights and freedoms document I’m referring to (the Charter) which I believe overlaps with God-given principles is that I believe there is a moral obligation on people as human beings to look out for each others’ rights. And that’s the practical sense in which I look at these concepts or oaths. I was impressed that the OPP oath didn’t just follow an oath to the Queen but was also concerned with the rights of the people. So, in a moral sense, I believe that many many people can understand what I’m saying. And that may be enough to make a huge difference in pushing back this global slave project which has advanced over the last hundred years or so since H. G. Wells and Aldous Huxley and people like that started to formalize their agenda. When we do that we will automatically create something outside of this evil malevolent agenda. So I look at things in terms of what is naturally human, how humans perceive the function of law in a common sense way–not the laws as they are written but the laws as they should be. And I think that’s the concept I have for an alternative future–which we may have to adopt in the immediate future in order to have any future. And 2) my second point is please explain how to apply your concepts to the COVID crisis situation and what to do about detention camps etc. Maybe you can explain in more comments or in a separate post and can provide a link or whatever. 3. I plan on appealing to peoples’ sense of right and wrong, their understanding of rights and freedoms. I don’t put any trust in institutions–if you were getting that impression that’s not my way of looking at things. I see humans as having a lot of potential to do the right thing. That’s all. And maybe that’s something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial