Vous pouvez aider Jacques Antoine Normandin en signant sa pétition :
Nous demandons l'appui de tous les Québécois(es) qui veulent
reprendre leurs droits et libertés garanties par la Charte canadienne et
dénoncer la haute-trahison et les mensonges des juges et avocats de l'État
antimonarchique du Québec.
Voici deux vidéos de Dean C. Clifford un Canadien qui
explique comment fonctionnent les lois, d'une simplicité remarquable. Et
comment nous pouvons nous sortir des accusations en cours, de l'impôt et des
taxes, jusqu'aux billets de contravention, permis de conduire, etc, en
connaissant nos droits et en utilisant la juridiction et notre véritable
identité de la bonne façon!
Pour l'instant en Anglais seulement. Mais je vais faire
les sous-titres en Anglais et Français très bientôt.
Merci à Laurier Jacques pour les vidéos et le résumé qu'il a
fait en Français, et qui se trouve en bas des vidéos.
Il se trouve d'autres informations au sujet de la
souveraineté individuelle, après le résumé de Laurier Jacques.
"Ce temple est mon pays, je n'en connais point d'autre."
(Jean Racine)
AVIS: Les présentes ne constituent pas un avis ou un conseil
juridique. Elles ne représentent qu'une réflexion de l'auteur et ne sauraient
être une opinion ou un conseil juridique ou légal quel qu'il soit. Chaque
lecteur doit faire sa propre démarche, tirer ses propres conclusions et agir
selon sa conscience.
Le traducteur ne peut être tenu responsable du contenu. Pour
bien comprendre le contenu, le lecteur doit s'en tenir à l'original anglais.
SYNTHÈSE
par Laurier Jacques
Canada
Signifie deux choses: 1- le territoire; 2- le gouvernement,
l'État.
1- Peu importe la définition qu'on en donne, terre ou mer.
2- Le gouvernement du Canada a été créé par une loi du
gouvernement britannique, l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord Britannique en 1867. Cet
acte fut modernisé par la Constitution de 1982. Le gouvernement du Canada n'est
donc pas canadien, mais britannique car créé par une loi britannique. Les
Canadiens sont aussi des citoyens britanniques et n'ont pas besoin de passeport
pour voyager dans un des pays de l'empire britannique.
La naissance
Les parents créent un nom et le donnent à l'enfant. Cette
information était colligée dans le baptistère. Depuis 1994, elle l'est dans le
Bulletin de naissance vivante ou dans la Déclaration de naissance vivante (DNV)
signée par un ou deux parents.
En langage de fiducie, les parents sont
créateurs/fiduciaires, l'enfant est bénéficiaire.
L'État exige de l'informer de la naissance et du nom de
l'enfant. Il prend la place des parents comme fiduciaires. Il crée un certificat
de naissance (CN) dont le nom est le même que sur la Déclaration de naissance
vivante. Ceci a pour effet de créer un nouveau trust où l'État, le créateur, est
le créateur/bénéficiaire et où l'enfant est le fiduciaire. Le nom et tout ce est
enregistré sous le nom constitue le patrimoine, le res, l' "Estate".
Dans un trust, le fiduciaire est responsable de la
réalisation des volontés du bénéficiaire. Il est le secrétaire-exécutif du
président directeur général.
Le titre
Un titre est un nom inscrit dans un document qui atteste que
le propriétaire d'un bien est véritablement le propriétaire juridique de ce
bien.
Lors de la naissance, le titre est le nom et sa valeur est le
potentiel de l'enfant.
Un titre, lorsqu'il est cédé, se divise en deux parties: une
partie légale et une partie équité.
La partie légale réfère au droit que le créateur/constituant
confère à une tierce partie de gérer le patrimoine. L'équité appartient à celui
qui a fourni le travail pour donner la valeur au patrimoine. Le res ou le
patrimoine confié en fiducie constitue l'avoir propre et net de la fiducie. La
partie équité demeure à la fiducie et n'est pas cédé au fiduciaire lors de la
création ou de la gestion de la fiducie.
Choix du titre
Si je me présente sous la
déclaration de naissance vivante : titre en équité
(Aussi: attestation de naissance vivante,
bulletin de naissance vivante, enregistrement de naissance vivante- NdT)
Si je me présente sous le certificat de naissance: titre légal
Créée et signée par
un ou les parents.
Détenteur = bénéficiaire
État = fiduciaire
Créé et signé par
l'État
Détenteur = fiduciaire
État = bénéficiaire
Contient le mot vivant
Omet le mot vivant car un être juridique est un être sans vie, mort qui
doit être animé par des êtres vivants
Le détenteur :
Le détenteur :
Droits innés et inhérents (birthrights)
Conduire des affaires, faire du commerce
Exercer une profession
Accéder au territoire et à ses richesses
Contribuer à l'amélioration des conditions de vie de tous
Bénéfices et privilèges.
Droits statutaires, moyennant permis et taxes
Conduire des affaires, faire du commerce
Utiliser les ressources
Exercer une profession
Au service du bien commun
Au service de qui? (bénéficiaires de l'État ?? : dirigeants,
fonctionnaires, bailleurs de fonds, etc)
Ami de Sa Majesté
Sujets de Sa Majesté
Non-taxable, non-imposable
Lourdement taxé et imposé
Rétribué par les étrangers pour l'accès aux ressources de SON territoire
Rétribués par les taxes
Justice: Common Law, Cour supérieure
Cour continuelle
Affidavit avec 3 témoins pour réclamation contre une offense, un dommage
Amendes selon grille de frais
Justice: tribunaux où il est toujours perdant.
Non soumis aux lois statutaires du gouvernement du Canada si non employé
ou agent de l'État (CCDL, Art 32 et Constitution 1982, Art. 52)
Soumis à toutes les lois et règlements statutaires.
L'État a le devoir de protéger la vie, la propriété et la liberté du
détenteur. Serment de la Reine lors de son discours d'intronisation.
Exploités par l'État
Son vaisseau sur les eaux du commerce: un navire de guerre.
SSon vaisseau sur les eaux du commerce: un stupide canot.
Dans ton message, tu disais vouloir toi même faire la
démarche. Et bien, j'ai pensé t'envoyer des liens qui, je l'espère, te
guideront dans la bonne voie.
Je n'ai personnellement pas commencé encore, mais je compte
le faire cettte année.
J'ai entendu parler du concept de "freeman of the land" il y
a plus d'un an. Depuis, je me suis beaucoup informé sur le sujet et je t'envois
l'info que j'ai trouvé la plus utile... J'espère que ça pourra t'aider.
Une des pionnières du genre qui a mis beaucoup d'information
sur son site et dans son livre gratuit :
Aussi, le blog de Kate donne vraiment beaucoup d'information
sur "loose the name WIN the game" avec son tout nouveau document "Denique
Ultimatum" qui semblerait mettre K.O. les tentatives des bureaucrates d'avoir
jurisdiction sur nous.
Je t'envois en pièce jointe, tous les documents qu'on trouve
sur son site.
Cliquez-ici pour télécharger les documents.
Eric Hamel : Finalement, je suis tombé sur une vidéo qui
disait que la cours Suprême des États-Unis avait statué que TOUS LES AMÉRICAINS
ÉTAIENT SOUVERAINS et que PERSONNE N'AVAIT D'AUTORITÉ SUR PERSONNE. En
Anglais seulement.
People who are point out that the State has no authority has
the PTB running around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they
can’t prove that they have any authority.
Thus the people are winning in court because the Courts go
into dishonor by not answering the authority question.
The Supreme Court has ruled that all US Citizens are
Sovereigns.
As a side note the same thing is true all over the world, no
one can prove authority over man.
The story so far: The council have demanded council tax
from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years -- on the grounds that there is
no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The
council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think that
they have the right to demand that I pay council tax...which they do not. I am
happy to pay my council tax -- but only when the Council has agreed to provide
me with a lawful contract... this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that
it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting
in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.
The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger
Hayes) -- but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR
ROGER HAYES... but that isn't me.
If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction -- please refer to previous
articles or the UK Column web site
http://www.uk-column.org .
On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of
witnesses, thecourt conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act
as 'third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court
agreed that they were two entirely separate entities.This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.
The court however did not concede without putting up a very vigorous fight...
this is how events unfolded in the court room.
Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the
court?
Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?
Me: No sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may
address me as Roger.
Judge: I will not address you as Roger; I will call you MR HAYES.
Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and
I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE -- court protocol dictates that
a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose -- the judge then
referred to me as 'the gentleman' but avoided referring to me as MR HAYES).
Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES
is not represented in court.
Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not
represented in court. (NOTE -- This would mean that the case would have to be
dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared).
Judge: I can see that the council has representation in the court.
Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in
the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party
representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so
is MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.
Me: Yes it is.
Judge: No it isn't, it is a PERSON.
Me: A PERSON is a corporation.
Judge: No it isn't.
Me: Define person.
Judge: I don't have to.
Me: Then let me do it for you sir, A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is
defined in a law dictionary). Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act
of 1666?
Judge: I am familiar with many laws.
Me: Sir, I asked if you are familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you
are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and
that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.
Judge: Let's hear from the council.
Me: Sir we can only move on
to the council's presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES
is represented in court.
Judge:
Fine.
And the case continued... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party
representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge
eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The judge was
obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge
to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck
back to the council. Smart judge.
So what does this all mean? In
very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the
court has accepted that the council's claim is against the legal fiction MR
ROGER HAYES and not me, the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also
accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend
the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is truly out of the bag (although for
me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes
on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER
HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes...
because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn't
me. One important thing is now clearly established -- I, Roger Hayes, am not
liable for council tax, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
Here are two videos of Dean C. Clifford a Canadian who explains how the laws
work, remarkably simple. And how we can get out of charges for taxes, fees,
speeding tickets, drivers license, etc., by knowing our rights and how to use
the jurisdiction and our true identity the right way!
For now only in English. But I will do the subtitles in English and French
soon.
Thank you to Laurier
Jacques
for the videos and the summary he did in French, which is found under the
videos.
There is other information
about individual sovereignty, after summarizing Jacques Laurier.
"This temple is my country, I know none else." (Jean Racine)
NOTICE: These do not constitute advice or legal advice. They represent only a
reflection of the author and should not be an opinion or legal advice or legal
whatsoever. Each player must make his own approach, draw its own conclusions and
act according to conscience.
The translator can not be held responsible for the content. To fully understand
the contents, the reader must stick to the original English.
SUMMARY
in French by Jacques Laurier
translated in English by Eric Hamel
Canada
Means two things: 1 - the territory; 2 - the government, the State.
1 - No matter how one defines it, land or sea
2 - The Government of Canada was created by an Act of the British government,
the Act of the British North America in 1867. This act was modernized by the
1982 Constitution. The Government of Canada is not Canadian, but British car
created by British legislation. Canadians are also British citizens and do not
need a passport to travel in countries of the British Empire.
Birth
Parents create a name and give the child. This information was collected for
the baptistery. Since 1994, it is in the Bulletin of live birth or in the
Statement of Live Birth (DNV) signed by one or both parents.
Language of trust, parents are creators / trustees, the child is the
beneficiary.
The State requires to inform him of the birth and the child's name. It takes
the place of parents as trustees. It creates a birth certificate (CN) whose name
is the same as on Statement of Live Birth. This has the effect of creating a new
trust where the state, the creator, is the creator / beneficiary and the child
is the trustee. The name and everything is saved as the heritage, respect, the
"Estate".
In a trust, the trustee is responsible for carrying out the wishes of the
recipient. He is the executive secretary of the CEO.
The title
A title is a name written in a document certifying that the owner of property
is really the legal owner of the property.
At birth, the title is the name and its value is the child's potential.
Title, upon surrender is divided into two parts: one part legal and part
equity.
The legal part refers to the right as the creator / grantor gives a third
party to manage their assets. Equity owned by the supplier to give work to the
heritage value. The res or trust estate is the equity and net of the trust. The
equity portion remains in the trust and is not transferred to the Trustee during
the creation or management of the trust.
Choice of title
If I present myself under the
statement of live birth: as in equity
(Also: certificate of live birth, birth newsletter alive, registration
of live birth-NdT)
If I go on the birth certificate: title légal
Created and signed by a parent or parents.
Beneficiary = holder
State = fiduciary
Created and signed by the State
Trustee = holder
State = beneficiary
Contains the word alive
Omits the word as a living being legal is a lifeless, dead to be animated by living beings
The holder:
The holder:
Birthright
and inherent (birthrights)
Conduct business, to trade
Practice a profession
Access to the territory and its wealth
Help improve the living conditions of all.
Benefits and privileges.
Statutory rights under license and taxes
Conduct business, to trade
Use resources
Practice a profession
Serving the
common good
Serving who?
(beneficiaries of the State?: leaders, officials, donors, etc.)
Friend of Her
Majesty
Her Majesty's
subjects
Non-taxable,
non-taxable
Heavily taxed
and taxed
Paid by
foreigners for access to resources of its territory
Taxes paid by
Justice:
Common Law, Superior Court
Court continued
Affidavit with three witnesses to a claim against injury, damage
Fines according to fee schedule
Justice
courts where he always loses.
Not subject
to statutory laws of the Government of Canada if not employee or agent of the
State (CCRF, 1982 Constitution and Art 32, Art. 52)
Subject to
all laws and statutory regulations.
The State has
the duty to protect life, property and freedom of the holder. Oath to the Queen
during his inauguration speech.
Operated by
the state
His ship on
the waters of commerce: a warship.
His
ship on the waters of commerce: a stupid boat.
In your message, you said you want to do the same approach. Well, I thought
to send you these links, in the hope that it will guide you in the right
direction.
I personally have not started yet, but I intend to do it this year.
I heard about the concept of "freeman of the land" more than a year ago.
Since then, I became very knowledgeable on the subject and I'm sending you the
info I found most useful ... I hope it can help you.
One of the pioneers of the genre that put a lot of information on her website
and in her free book:
Also, the blog of Kate really gives much information about "loose the name
WIN the game" with its new document "Denique Ultimatum" which would seem to
knock the bureaucrats' attempts to have jurisdiction over us.
I'm sending you an attachment, all the documents found on her website.
Click here to download the documents.
Eric Hamel: Finally, I came across a video that said that the current U.S.
Supreme court ruled that ALL AMERICANS WERE SOVEREIGN and NO ONE HAD AUTHORITY
OVER ANYONE.
People who are point out that the State has no authority has
the PTB running around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they
can’t prove that they have any authority.
Thus the people are winning in court because the Courts go
into dishonor by not answering the authority question.
The Supreme Court has ruled that all US Citizens are
Sovereigns.
As a side note the same thing is true all over the world, no
one can prove authority over man.
The story so far: The council have demanded council tax
from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years -- on the grounds that there is
no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The
council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think that
they have the right to demand that I pay council tax...which they do not. I am
happy to pay my council tax -- but only when the Council has agreed to provide
me with a lawful contract... this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that
it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting
in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.
The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger
Hayes) -- but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR
ROGER HAYES... but that isn't me.
If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction -- please refer to previous
articles or the UK Column web site
http://www.uk-column.org .
On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of
witnesses, thecourt conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act
as 'third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court
agreed that they were two entirely separate entities.This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.
The court however did not concede without putting up a very vigorous fight...
this is how events unfolded in the court room.
Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the
court?
Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?
Me: No sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may
address me as Roger.
Judge: I will not address you as Roger; I will call you MR HAYES.
Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and
I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE -- court protocol dictates that
a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose -- the judge then
referred to me as 'the gentleman' but avoided referring to me as MR HAYES).
Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES
is not represented in court.
Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not
represented in court. (NOTE -- This would mean that the case would have to be
dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared).
Judge: I can see that the council has representation in the court.
Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in
the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party
representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so
is MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.
Me: Yes it is.
Judge: No it isn't, it is a PERSON.
Me: A PERSON is a corporation.
Judge: No it isn't.
Me: Define person.
Judge: I don't have to.
Me: Then let me do it for you sir, A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is
defined in a law dictionary). Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act
of 1666?
Judge: I am familiar with many laws.
Me: Sir, I asked if you are familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you
are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and
that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.
Judge: Let's hear from the council.
Me: Sir we can only move on
to the council's presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES
is represented in court.
Judge:
Fine.
And the case continued... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party
representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge
eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The judge was
obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge
to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck
back to the council. Smart judge.
So what does this all mean? In
very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the
court has accepted that the council's claim is against the legal fiction MR
ROGER HAYES and not me, the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also
accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend
the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is truly out of the bag (although for
me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes
on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER
HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes...
because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn't
me. One important thing is now clearly established -- I, Roger Hayes, am not
liable for council tax, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
