Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/71216642/Ugly-Face-of-Tyranny
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:20:46+00:00

Document:
Edited March 21, 2008 The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.
It sets itself above the will and judgement of the people and refuses to comply with the wishes of the people. It lies to the people to get what it wants. The traditional rights of the people are treated as obstacles to the objectives of government. It creates animosities among the people. It blames the people for not stopping it from acting against the wishes of the people.
Disclaimer: Deadly force is NOT being advocated on this webpage - It is just shown to be "the last resort" in the sequence of methods of redress for severe violations of one's rights - rights which are supposed to be available to Canadians and Americans as free will sons of God.
It is a sobering fact that, as of January 1, 2003, ANY Canadian who has anything to do with a gun of any kind is an OUTLAW and considered a CRIMINAL and FELON, according to the Government of Canada. 1. Any "person" in Canada, meaning a subject/slave of the Roman style corporation called the Crown in right of Canada, who does NOT possess a gun ownership license, and/or who has an unregistered gun, is a "WANTED" CRIMINAL if he/she owns, or has a gun in his/her possession after January 1st, 2003. Notice that this DOES NOT include a free will man who is NOT under contract with the Crown to be a servant/slave of the Crown, and therefore, is NOT a "person resident in Canada". However, the police, judges and Crown councils will make the assumption that you are a "person resident in Canada", and will use force and the commercial courts to injure you physically if you do not comply with a statute that can ONLY apply to "servants of the Crown". 2. A "license" is a waiver of prosecution for doing something unlawful. The waiver stands providing the licensee obeys the rules which are an integral part of the license. Notice that any license is a "guilty plea entered into the public records". Therefore, if you accept a gun owner's license, you are making a guilty plea that you are committing an unlawful act. You are a "CONVICTED" CRIMINAL. Gun ownership then becomes a privilege granted by the Crown, a privilege that can be revoked at the whim of the government, or their international bankster masters. Under what circumstance would the government commit such a agrant violation of and intrusion into a man's right of self defense? Who, or what organization is the government defending from the good people of Canada?
4 IS THERE A RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST THE FOLLOWING MEN AND WOMEN ACTING AS CORPORATE ENTITIES AND ENGAGED IN DEPRIVING THE CANADIAN PEOPLE OF THEIR COMMON LAW RIGHTS? "Government" cannot force a free will human to be a corporate member, even though they use deception to entrap people into the status of "subject/slave" natural person, they do have to make an "exit door" available. That "exit door" is found buried in some government act. In the USA, it is in the Uniform Commercial Code, and in Canada, it is in the Criminal Code. [Thanks to the research efforts of Robert Menard.] I have a suggested notice of "claim of right" which you can obtain by clicking on this link.
Disobeying a statute Sec. 126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).
Disobeying order of court Sec. 127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Rob points out that in some jurisdictions, as in New Zealand, the phrase "without lawful excuse" is replaced with the phrase "without claim of right".
This then explains the use of Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada which says: "Defence with claim of right"
(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.
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justied or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39. This also suggests that there are no true 'judicial' courts for the 'free will people' of Canada [and the USA]. All courts are 'administrative' ( All 'judges' are ofcers of the make-believe ship called a Province, State, Canada or of the UNITED STATES executive branch of government) for 'slave administration and slave disciplining' in the administrative courts of the corporate Crown, the administrative body of the City of London. This is explained in my "name game" blog which you can download from this link.
Interestingly, the Criminal Code of Canada, a Roman civil law document pretaining only to the commercial corporation called the Crown in right of Canada or of a province, but reecting much of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law relative to torts [wrong acts against people or against their unalienable rights]. Unfortunately, tort law is used against free will individual men by a claim within the claimed to exist property right by the corporate Crown or State - the claim of a slave owner to administer and discipline its slave property.
The question has to be asked is "How much force is necessary to defend property or oneself from unlawful arrest or conscation of possessions by police ofcers carrying loaded rearms and who are also trained in martial arts, and will frequently, and without hesitation, use both?"
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justied in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary. As is commonly the occurance, police invade homes and real property without proper, or no warrants when there is no emergency reason to do so.
is a criminal act by police, subject to the right of self defense. Any ofcer of the government, such as a judge, a justice of the peace(JP), a clerk of the court, a Crown council, police, and other agents of the Crown, including Canada Customs and Revenue agents, who unlawfully deprive you of your Common Law RIGHTS of life, liberty and property are depriving you of your LIFE. They claim that right of administration over you by the false and fraudulent claim upon you as a concocted legal ction attached to your God Created body - the name found on the copy of the birth certicate you may have in your possession where the family name has been converted into a primary name or surname. This is an evil game of play-acting as make-believe ofcers of a make-believe ship called a Roman style corporation - the Crown, upon which you are assumed to be a lowly crewmember. Their game is totally make-believe - a fantasy; however, the results of their dispicable games are very real to you in the deprivation of your God Given RIGHTS, especially your LIFE. Remember, LIFE is TIME. We have a limited amount of time to spend on this planet, and government thugs have no claim on any of it, be it any time out of your physical presence, or your time spent earning a living wage. And so, where there is no available justice system, or where the justice system is actually perpetrating the crime against you, you have a right to use deadly force on the perpetrator, or upon those who have usurped authority to direct deadly force against you, and have a history of doing so, as is the case with judges, JP's and CCRA agents acting unlawfully under the assumption that you are a "limited liability person" - a servant/subject of the Crown. There is absolutely no excuse for a judge or JP being ignorant of the Magna Carta, especially Section 39, and, there are many recent acknowledgments by Canadian courts that the Magna Carta is a viable part of the Canadian Constitution (and, not in reference to the Trudeau piece of toilet paper called the Constitution Act 1982): 5 39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
All judges and jp's know that you are not subject to income tax or any administrative procedures arising out of the income tax where the complaint is relative to your not complying with the income tax act. They have absolutely no excuse for such unlawful activity.
Consider a judge or jp who issues an arrest warrant against you for your failure to appear for a summons on an income tax issue. They have unlawfully sent armed men (police or sheriff) who will kill or severely injure you if you resist arrest. Therefore, they are just as guilty of taking your life as would be the policeman or sheriff who attempts to arrest you for such a falsely issued warrant.
Any CRA agent who comes to your door to serve notices and demands upon you KNOW that you are not subject to their administrative procedures. They use such visitations to "produce evidence" that you somehow give assent to being a "person" subject to the income tax act. This is fraud for the purposes of taking that part of your life that makes up the wages they wish to deprive you of as income tax. Do you have a right to take their life? You bet! They have the government justice system supporting their fraud and extortion game - and the intent to take your life.
Simply, what this means that if a judge convicts you of income tax evasion, failure to le, or other charge out of the income tax act, he/she is taking your life. If the judge or JP does other than to ask you if you have made a contract with the Crown to be a corporate part of the Crown as a limited liability entity, unless such a written and signed contract between you and an agent of the Crown is part of the afdavit that issued with the summons or warrant, that judge or JP is committing high treason against you, the sovereign. And if your answer is "NO!", the judge or JP has no other choice than to immediately quash the issue, and issue reprimand against the CRA agent(s) and Crown Council who caused the charge to be issued.
The RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE, especially against tyranny perpetrated by those who represent ofcers of the government, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Common Law Principle called the "Rule of NECESSITY". The ultimate "rule of Necessity" is the right to kill to protect your own life.
This fact could easily be mitigated by the Canadian Judiciary making a public declaration that they will uphold their oaths to the Queen, and to protect the God Given RIGHTS of Canadians, including the right to not submit to the government extortion racket called the Income Tax and GST.
"A VOICE OF OPPOSITION TO TYRANNY" "It is the duty of government to prevent injustice - not promote it!" Vol 12 Issue 9, September 1993 Sentinel, Rochester', Ind. Tuesday, June 1, 1983 HOLD OFF COPS, IS CLEARED.
MUNCIE, Ind. (AP) A Muncie man accused of holding police at bay with a shotgun and Molotov cocktails for three hours has been acquitted of criminal recklessness and disorderly conduct ... The judge ruled police had no business on the man's property. Judge Robert E. Robinson of Delaware County Court absolved Robert L. Murphy, 63 of any wrongdoing after defense attorney Marion W. Withers of Anderson argued police had no right to go into Murphy's property because they had no court order calling for a cleanup. City ofcials had labeled Murphy's property a junkyard and eyesore and wanted to clean it up. The land is next to a closed sanitary landll. When the cleanup crew arrived May 20, 1982, Murphy was waiting. For three hours he prevented police and heavy bulldozing equipment from entering his yard, ofcials said. The incident ended when ofcials agreed to remove the bulldozer and promised him his property would not be disturbed.
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting ofcer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State. 135 Ind. 308 (1893).
Housh v. People, 75 Ill. 491; reafrmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 340; State v. Rousseau, 241 P.2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery." State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950). "The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense." State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954). Every individual has a right to resist an unlawful arrest, even up to the point of using deadly force, if necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court - John Bad Elk v. United States (177 U.S. 529 (1900)).
When we hear the expression 'Rule of Necessity', we usually think 'Self Defense', where an action, including deadly force, is the only available option to defend one's, or another's, physical body from impending harm by a belligerent assaulting party. But. it is also a claim to be delt with in a hearing of jurisdiction by courts, before a court can proceed to try a party who has used an action for self defense, and was charged with a crime for doing so. In such a case, the onus is on the Crown or State to prove that the party committed the act voluntarily, and not under duress, that other options of defense or actions were available, and that there was 'mens rea' - criminal intent by the accused party. Remember, evidence 'suggests', proof 'shows'. However, as a slave owned by the Crown or State, as you are, if you accept or acknowledge that you are 'one and the same' as the 'legal identity' - as the name shown on a birth certicate, you have no right of defense against the 'ofcers' of the slave owner, the Crown or State. The above American cases were decided when the State was concealing the fact that citizens were considered slaves, and now have States prosecuting those who defend themselves by using force against police committing unlawful actions against them. It now seems that the veil of deceit has been removed by one's observation of recent State's (or Crown's) orders to use whatever force is desirable or necessary to discipline or even exterminate disobedient slaves, as all 'persons' were declared 'disobedient slaves' in the early 1930s. All statutes, including Police Acts, deal only with 'persons' - people in the role of 'slave', and police in the role of slave discipline and the enforcement of slave owner's rules. Police have no authority over 'free will adult humans, except as 'posse comitatus' - men of the county, the same authority as any other moral adult human has obligations to defend people and property from malicious theft, threat or damage. Clarication: The State or Crown takes the given and family name, registered by the parents of a newborn child, and converts the family name into a 'surname' [primary name], and converts the given names to 'referential names', this is opposite to reality, and is thus a ction. However, upon doing that, the State or Crown claims the name under copyright as created intellectual property. When that child becomes an adult, the State or Crown assumes [by their use of false and fraudulent education to deceive people into believing that the 'legal identity name' is their name] that that human has enveloped him/herself in that name, the name as found on the birth certicate. However, there are vague clauses in statutes dealing with names, name changes and/or vital statistics which shows that is 'offered' as a contract, and thus need not be accepted by the adult human. To 'offer' in contract means that the 'offerer' owns that which is being offered. Of course, any contract is void if not 'accepted' knowingly and voluntarily. The acceptance of that 'legal identity' name carries with it the status of 'slave' owned by the State or Crown. The State/Crown applies the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali - an accessory [the human free will adult you] attached to a principal [the legal identity name] becomes the property of the owner [State/Crown] of the principal. Recent research shows that the actual acceptance of the Crown or State owned 'legal identity' name is voluntary, and thus, you don't have to acknowledge or accept that name. But, we do have to use that name in commerce, banking, obtaining a passport, and dealing with government and other corporate bodies. And, the key term here is 'have to' - no choice, not a voluntary issue. The "have to's" is that which our lives depend - food, shelter, clothing, economics, travel, and so forth. Therefore, the use of the legal identity in collecting our wages, banking, in government programs, driver's license, etc. is not really a voluntary issue. IF it is not used in a voluntary way, it is under 'PRIVATE NECESSITY', a version of the Rule of Necessity. Under that rule, no contract is implied or can be assumed by the Crown or State - unless we remain silent regarding our claim of Private Necessity. GOOGLE "Private Necessity" And regarding a signature, when the word 'for' or 'per' is placed in front of your normal 'cheque signing' signature, you, the free will human, do not assume any obligations or debt associated with the signed document.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.