STICKY NOTE: This page updates irregularly.
You may need to: more than once to clear your browser cache.
Sticky
SOME CAVEATS
Read this carefully before moving forward.
Before we begin, since virtually all professions are quite territorial and the various law societies across the country are no exception, we offer the standard disclaimer:
You will not receive legal advice here. You will receive the documented facts. However those failing to do their own due diligence while seeking some kind of 'magic bullet' to exploit the system will be setting themselves up for failure, police violence and even incarceration. You have been warned.
We will also NOT do your research or document preparation for you. If pressed, we will answer your general questions and we will refer you to others who have historically offered prep. assistance.
So much for all the required caveats. Moving forward ...
__________________
Also Sticky
THINK YOU KNOW THE LAW?
This intro will probably surprise most.
How to best approach this entire subject matter is something that has been given considerable thought. Those seeking real freedom in their lives will probably understand already that we are not free in this country at all. Far from it. Worse yet - those who have appointed themselves as our masters/controllers have invested literally centuries in perfecting that control and will do whatever it takes to maintain their positions of wealth and power. Undoing the damage they have done will be a formidable but doable challenge. It took about 150 years to perfect the system in Canada that enslaves us all. Breaking free of the abuse will not happen during commercial breaks to the latest trendy TV show.
Of course here at Flatland Free we welcome those who have the courage and personal integrity to speak truth to power. It is becoming riskier every day in today's political climate to stand on your true beliefs. For those who would prefer to 'keep their heads down' in the hope that things will magically get better, the best we can offer is the following Citizen's Guide for surviving the de facto world of Acts/Statutes/Regulations:
A Citizen's Guide to Rights When Dealing with Police in Canada
As we research more deeply into the above "citizen rights" it will soon become clear that these rights are not as we have been encouraged to believe. In fact, the designation of "citizen" is also not a good thing. However that is jumping a bit too far ahead at this point. For now, we wish those relying upon our "citizen rights" the best of luck. With that, we have done the best we can for those unfortunate enough to find themselves ensnared in the de facto (ie. literally "fake") legal system. Moving on...
For those seeking actual remedy to the increasing abuses of a legal system that is designed to profit the state and its agents at our expense, the following will be a good start. It was originally intended to offer a practical guide to clients of the Kingston Coalition Against Poverty who were seeking relief from Ontario's virtually unaccountable and out of control C.A.S. (Children's Aid Society or Child Abduction Services as they are better known among those who's children have been targeted).
It explains the difference between the so-called legal system and our our lawful rights in sufficient detail to serve as an excellent starting point for those who wish to understand how we have been deceived and what remedies are available to us. The Guide is a 16 page .pdf file written in simple to understand language - anyone capable of reading the back of their breakfast cereal box will have no trouble discovering how the current legal system really works and the limits to that system that have been carefully hidden from us:
C.A.S Lawful Remedy: a backgrounder to the Law
Although that C.A.S. Lawful Remedy document was written about 25 years ago by yours truly, it remains an accurate reflection of the deception. For those who have either an academic bent or enjoy digging deeply into anything they research, the following two web sites offer plenty of even more current information to pique anyone's serious interest. However - fair warning: the deceptions are designed to discourage all but the most determined:
We are linking to the following Canadian web site's "Foundational Knowledge" main menu item:
A Warrior Calls: Foundational Knowledge
Next check out the amazing Anna von Reitz. She lives in Alaska. Her main web site is a wealth of information but the sheer volume of content can seem intimidating. After some thought we believe that the link to just one of her initiatives will be the most useful at this point. We remind everyone that the foundational principles are the same no matter which side of the Canada/U.S. border happens to be home:
Anna von Reitz: Restoring Lawful Government
If mastering the details were easy then presumably everyone would be doing it and the abusers and manipulated would be rendered powerless. The foundational information is the same for both Canada and the U.S. and indeed for any country governed with Acts/Statutes/Regulations based upon Maritime Law. In fact, those Acts/Statutes/Regulations are not LAW but give the enforcers the authority to act "under the colour of law". In short, Acts/Statutes and Regulations are literally known as "de facto" (ie. fake!) law as defined in the legal 'bibles' such as Bouvier's and Black's Law.
This introduction might best be closed with a list of a few redefined words that the de facto legal system uses to confuse and entrap the public. We are confident that this redefining of words by our legal system will first surprise and then eventually infuriate many if not most. If anyone has ever experienced being forced into a court expecting justice and instead received only frustration, then perhaps the following will explain a great deal. For some if not most, your instincts were probably right - you never stood a chance. The information we will present moving forward will give you the tools to change the odds.
Application: to beg, plead petition, implore, entreat, ask or request. It creates a number of assumptions in court. He who begs knows exactly what they are begging for; they know exactly what they are giving up for it; they acknowledge the authority to grant OR they are willing to create it through transference, and finally, they are doing it entirely voluntarily, for nobody is obliged to beg. Apply for anything and you are literally begging for a “benefit” (that in most cases you already have by birthright) and giving up most of your basic rights.
Submission: to agree to bend to another’s will or to leave to another’s discretion. It is a fundamentally voluntary action. When you submit a form, it does not mean that you are merely providing it... in fact, you are agreeing to give up most of your basic rights.
Must: This is one of their trickiest. It has two senses and is sometimes legally synonymous with the word ‘may’. In one sense it is an imperative and creates an obligation upon you to act. In the other it is merely directive and creates no obligation, but it defines conditions that have to be fulfilled before authority can be lawfully seized. The second definition is the one seen most often in statutes. Unfortunately most people presume that the word is obligating them to do something.
Required: Just like ‘must’ this word has two senses or meanings; active and passive. Active creates a need for action, passive does not but once again defines conditions to be fulfilled. Sometimes it is legally synonymous with the word ‘need’. For example - when a cop states that he needs to see your driver’s licence, he is not saying that you are required to produce one. He is required to see one (not you to produce one) because without it, he literally has no authority over you. Show him a licence and you have created something called “joinder” which means that you consent to the cop having authority over you under the ACT/Statute/Regulations governing "driving" in your jurisdiction. However - only members of government, their employees or agents and those engaging in commerce on the public roads (such as a cab driver) are required to have a driver’s licence. Yes, really. But the cops, courts and the government will use every trick in the book to deceive you and achieve your consent.
Consent: An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. Consent supposes,
- a physical power to act;
- a moral power of acting;
- a serious, determined, and free use of these powers
Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce (verbally), or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.
Person: A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes.
But not every human being is a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English Law. To put it even simpler: you are NOT a person but rather you HAVE a person (literally a corporate legal fiction) that was created when your parents made that innocent seeming application for a birth certificate. Corporations and their governing rules (statutes) have no power over you, the flesh and blood individual, so the state had to create a fictional entity that it can act upon. Yes - all governments and state employees\agents are also corporations. CANADA (the corporate legal fiction) is duly registered in the United States. Look it up!
We will head deeper down this rabbit hole in later updates. For now it is important to note that "societies" are either incorporated and known to the law, or unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice. To even qualify for “colour of law” authority, the rules (statutes) must be created by an incorporated entity. This will make much more sense later.
Registration: Historically registration was the act of a ship’s Captain signing over his vessel and all chattel contents to the harbour master for safe keeping. If you register something, you are signing over ownership to whom it is being registered.
Legal: “Legal” looks more to the literal, and “lawful” to the substance, of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “lawful” that the act is rightful in substance, that moral quality is secured. Most of us who know about the deceptions use the word “LAW” to refer to the 3 laws that apply to everyone:
- Do no harm to an individual.
- Do no harm to another’s property.
- Do not engage in fraud or deceit in your contracts.
That’s it. It is remarkably simple.
But what about all those municipal, provincial and federal "laws"? We will prove that those so-called “legal” laws/codes refer to the legal fictions defined in mere Acts, Statutes and Regulations. We will also prove that they do not apply to anyone unless we agree to accept their authority via a process known as joinder.
Includes: this is a restrictive term. If a statute says: ‘Fruit includes apples’, it actually means that only apples are considered fruit. Oranges and pears would not be considered fruit as defined in that example. Put another way - when a statute or contract says that it includes a list of things, then anything not on that list is not part of the statute or contract. That is why many contracts will feature the phrase in the ‘fine print’: “includes but not limited to...”.
And finally, one of my personal faves...
Understand: this word, when used by the state in the context of administrative law (Acts, Statutes and Regulations) does not mean ‘comprehend’. This sneaky word is best thought of as “stand under”. It is asking if you consent to a claim of legal authority over you by the party asking if you understand. For example, when a cop reads you your rights after arresting you, he will ask, “Do you understand these rights?” He does not particularly care if you comprehend what he said. If you answer, “Yes” then you have verbally consented to the joinder he needs to take physical control of your person under statute. In agreeing to those “rights” (defined as benefits in statute), you have actually given up most of your lawful (inherent or God given) rights and moved yourself from the top of the lawful hierarchy to the very bottom of ladder and elevated the state to the very top of the ladder. In short, when you are read your rights and agree to them, you are actually contracting to give up almost all your rights and power.
Stay tuned ... while we at Flatland Free are more focused on how to practically apply our true lawful power to eventually take back control of our abusive governments, there will be much more to follow, including a lawful way to deal with those annoying 3rd party debt collectors.
Talk it over with your neighbours, for ultimately you WILL decide.
Questions? All comments and questions remain strictly anonymous. Nobody gets your information. Contact:
__________________
January 3, 2023
HAD ENOUGH?
Coming Soon With Remedies
But only for those who confidentially request the guidance. The political/legal abuse of those of us willing to expose the liars is getting serious.
__________________