SteveUK asked why Canadian Freemen were so obsessed with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Be careful what you ask for because you're getting a data dump in response.
So why is the Queen is so important to our Freeman nitwits? It's because legally she had dictatorial rule over Canada. She's Commander -In-Chief of all of our armed forces such as they are, and owns most of Canada since all Government property, at least that of the federal government, is legally owned by the Queen. As Wikipedia says;
Canada's constitution is based on the Westminster parliamentary model, wherein the role of the Queen is both legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is vested with all the powers of state, collectively known as the Royal Prerogative, leading the populace to be considered subjects of the Crown.[136] However, as the sovereign's power stems from the people[7][137] and the monarch is a constitutional one, he or she does not rule alone, as in an absolute monarchy. Instead, the Crown is regarded as a corporation sole, with the monarch being the centre of a construct in which the power of the whole is shared by multiple institutions of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial[5]—acting under the sovereign's authority, which is entrusted for exercise by the politicians (the elected and appointed parliamentarians and the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from among them) and the judges and justices of the peace.[6] The monarchy has thus been described as the underlying principle of Canada's institutional unity and the monarch as a "guardian of constitutional freedoms" whose "job is to ensure that the political process remains intact and is allowed to function."
The Crown is the pinnacle of the Canadian Forces, with the constitution placing the monarch in the position of commander-in-chief of the entire force, though the governor general carries out the duties attached to the position and also bears the title of Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. Further, included in Canada's constitution are the various treaties between the Crown and Canadian First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, who view these documents as agreements directly and only between themselves and the reigning monarch, illustrating the relationship between sovereign and aboriginals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_ ... ional_role
She rules by the Royal Prerogative;
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy, as belonging to the sovereign alone.[1] It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out. Individual prerogatives can be abolished by Parliament, although in the United Kingdom special procedure applies.
The Queen even controls whether I can get a passport or not, just part of the Royal Prerogative. When I joined the Canadian civil service way back in another lifetime (1972) I had to make an oath of allegiance to the Queen because, technically, she employed me.
There are actually three areas where the Queen can play a critical role in the Canadian government. She must give her assent to federal and provincial legislation, she, through the Governor General, controls parliament and she approves the forming of new governments.
1 - Royal Assent - Her representatives, the Governor General of Canada, and the provincial Lieutenant Governor's, acting as her representatives, must approve legislation before it can become law. This was once actually refused in 1937 when the Province of Alberta tried to legislate control of the banks, a federal responsibility, to the province. The federal government asked Alberta's lieutenant governor to refuse assent and he agreed. Alberta could not pass the laws.
2 - Controls parliament - The Queen's approval is necessary to both open and close a session of parliament. This ability saved the conservative government in 2008. They had a minority government and the three other parties formed a coalition and said they were going to bring the government down with a vote of non-confidence. Although he had no reason to do it except to save his ass prime minister Harper scurried over to Rideau Hall and asked the governor general to prorogue parliament. She agreed and the government was saved.
In late 2008, the Governor General had to return to Canada in the midst of a state visit in Europe to contend with a parliamentary dispute, as a coalition of three opposition parties in parliament threatened to rescind their confidence in the Cabinet under the leadership of Stephen Harper and subsequently form the government. After two and half hours of deliberation, Jean chose to follow the constitutional precedent of accepting her prime minister's advice, which was to prorogue parliament until late January 2009. . Peter H. Russell, one of the constitutional experts from whom Jean sought advice, disclosed that the Governor General granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would produce a passable budget. Jean thus prevented the approaching non-confidence vote, as well as a resulting situation wherein she would be required to choose between asking the coalition to form a government or dissolving parliament and dropping the writs, after having a federal election only six weeks earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C3% ... rorogation
3 - She controls the forming of the government - As the quote above showed the governor general could have denied the request to prorogue and instead asked the other parties to form a government or required another election. Whenever we have a federal election the governor general has to approve the new government and if a government wishes to resign the GG must approve that also.
So on to the Freeman obsession with the Crown. First Psam. His first bright idea was to formally notify Queen Elizabeth that he had rescinded his allegiance to her and become an "individually sovereign character". I assume this was done on the assumption that if he could unilaterally eliminate his allegiance to the Crown he would also eliminate the ability of the various governments of Canada to impose their laws on him since these laws only existed because of Royal Assent. However he found, no doubt to his bitter disappointment, that the federal and provincial governments couldn't care less about any private issues he had with her majesty. The Laws of Canada still applied to him.
Rethinking that tactic he decided to negotiate with the Queen, offering to renew his pledge of allegiance if she would support his bid against the government to implement his lunatic voting system. As I posted before;
Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada
Buckingham Palace
London, England SW1A 1AA
Your Majesty,
I last wrote to You in February, 2011, with two important messages. First, I was rescinding my allegiance to your Majesty, taking on an individually sovereign character, and offering my friendship. Second, I was working on demonstrating and proliferating a form of election that I felt would improve the manifestation of democracy, an interactive electoral system, whereby voters could each make their choices at any time of their wishing, rather than only being allowed to periodically exercise this right.
Upon having given a great deal of scrutiny to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms assented by your Majesty when I was 9 years old, I am now giving strong consideration to renewing my pledge of allegiance to your Majesty, with gratitude, humility, and enthusiasm. It seems that all of the means to exercise the rights that I desire in my governance are already present in that Charter, and I had only failed to see them.
Section 3 of your Charter for Canada states that the right to vote is guaranteed, and uses no such word or phrase as “periodically”, “occasionally”, or “at agreed upon times” to designate the lawful guarantee of this right. It is simply guaranteed. The periodic elections currently used to choose officials provide the means to exercise this right on one day, and then the right is denied for as much as five years. The interactive electoral system does not ever deny this right, for any period of time. Therefore, as long as I am faithful to the laws of a Constitution for a society in Canada, open to participation by citizens of Canada, that uses the interactive electoral system to choose its legislative representatives, then according to Your Majesty’s Charter, no periodically elected legislative assembly in Canada has the right to have Me subjected to its governance.
Prior to renewing my pledge of allegiance to your Majesty, I wish to ascertain that the representatives of the Crown in Canada are willing to adhere to the laws You have commanded of them in your Charter. I have written the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia, and I wait to hear back from her to affirm that your beautiful laws will be respected. At such time that this affirmation is received, then it will be my great pleasure to once again call You my Queen, and You will hear back from Me at that time.
I particularly like this paragraph;
Prior to renewing my pledge of allegiance to your Majesty, I wish to ascertain that the representatives of the Crown in Canada are willing to adhere to the laws You have commanded of them in your Charter. I have written the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia, and I wait to hear back from her to affirm that your beautiful laws will be respected. At such time that this affirmation is received, then it will be my great pleasure to once again call You my Queen, and You will hear back from Me at that time.
In other words if you knock some heads together on my behalf I'll condescend to bestow my favour on you again. As pleased as the queen must have been to find Frank willing to return to the fold she, surprisingly, didn't jump to it and start ordering the government employees responsible (as I've said, her employees) to do whatever Psam wanted. So he went to court as threatened with unfortunate results.
Another very popular argument regarding the Crown is that our current Queen is not actually legally the monarch of Canada. Since she is not our titular head of state none of the statutes given Royal Assent during her purported reign are valid law. There are a number of arguments why she is not our legitimate ruler. They all revolve around her coronation. All are stupid. We'll start with two that actually were heard in court. First a British one,
R. v Jah. It has its own discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9476
1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Fraudulent Coronation.
1. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film “The Coronation Stone”, (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: “No Stone Unturned” (pages 36, 44), “A Touch of Treason” (page 50) and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny” (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at:
http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm. Further proof, that she did not want it televised at her coronation: You tube link.
2. The real Coronation Stone (“National Treasure No. 1”), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton’s books – “No Stone Unturned” and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny”, and the factory-manager, when I visited him.
3. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew’s Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the “queen’s” coronation, according to Bertie Gray’s children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.
…
Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s “authority” comes from her.
Jah was acquitted but not on these grounds. Since there is no requirement, apart from custom, that a specific stone be under the throne at the coronation, the fact that Liz may, or may not, have sat on a fake is irrelevant. It is actually irrelevant in a larger sense because the Coronation ceremony is nothing more than feel-good theatre irrelevant to whether or not Liz is Queen. Her right to the throne is not based on a stone or a ceremony but an Act of parliament, The Act of Settlement of 1701.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
Scotland accepted the Act of Settlement in 1707. These Acts set the sequence of succession and it made Elizabeth Queen on February 6, 1952 at the instant that her father, King George VI died. As I said in the Jah discussion;
"While Elizabeth II had her Coronation on 2 June 1953 she automatically ascended to the throne over a year earlier on 6 February 1952, when her father died. The one year waiting period was standard, to get mourning out of the way. Her Coronation, for all its pomp, was actually just a ceremony confirming an existing fact."
British monarchs ascend to the throne automatically upon the death of the reigning monarch. The coronation is an unnecessary ceremony which has no effect on the monarch's status. As Wikipedia says;
In most kingdoms, a monarch succeeding hereditarily does not have to undergo a coronation to ascend the throne or exercise the prerogatives of their office. King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, for example, did not reign long enough to be crowned before he abdicated, yet he was unquestionably the King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India during his brief reign. This is because in Britain, the law stipulates that the moment one monarch dies, the new one assumes the throne; thus, there is no point at which the throne is vacant.
So, if Elizabeth was queen without having to go through a coronation then it was irrelevant what she sat on while providing the show. A Merry-Go-Round wooden horse would, legally, have served just as well and would have made for a far more interesting ceremony.
Another variation on this, much used by Minister Belanger is that the Queen was legally crowned at the coronation but lost her position by violating her coronation oath. The oath requires her to swear that she will defend the faith, the Church of England. Belanger is a fanatic about the King James bible. He thinks that only the King James bible is the unalterable word of God. Somewhere in Deuteronomy there is a verse to the effect that god tells us that we can't add to or take away from his laws. Since the King James is how god has chosen to communicate with us then all of his laws are in the King James. That means by giving Royal Assent to ANY law the Queen violated her oath by adding to god's laws. A neat trick. The first time she gave Royal Assent she lost the right to give Royal Assent because the act of doing so violated her coronation oath.
This was taken to extreme by David Peterson, a Belanger acolyte for a while when he thought it in his best interests. Peterson is up on tax evasion charges and he argued that the Canadian Income Tax Act is not valid law because you can't find it in the King James bible. True enough.
Problem is that the oath, like the coronation itself, is irrelevant to her being queen. She was already queen when she made the oath so, again, it was just meaningless theatre with no legal implications.
Next up the Unlicensed Man David Kevin Lindsay. He has an extensive discussion here;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10022
Lindsay is perhaps the most knowledgeable freeman in Canada. He is responsible for numerous court actions and, while he lost them all, knew his way around the court. He familiarized himself with court procedure, knew what documents to file and when and argued effectively although, admittedly, futilely. Our ex-poster Hilfskreuzer Möwe had a very high regard for Lindsay.
Lindsay employed the Crown in an unsuccessful bid to get out of a failing to file tax returns conviction.
R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99
http://canlii.ca/t/2g1sx
3. The Coronation Oath
[28] In Mr. Lindsay’s submission, the Coronation Oath sworn by Her Majesty the Queen forms part of the Constitution Act, and is properly enforceable by him by virtue of its status as constitutional law and as a “contractual promise” between the Queen and her subjects. Mr. Lindsay’s submission is difficult to follow but, as I understand it, he contends that the relationship of the Queen to all others in the Realm (including Canada) is contractual; that the Queen breached the contract and was guilty of fraud by misrepresenting the Income Tax Act as mandatory upon him; that taxation is an attempt to steal his constitutionally-protected property from him; and that, by giving Royal Assent to the statute, the Queen violated her oath to maintain the principles of the Christian religion, which include the abolition of usury and the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. He submits, as well, that the oath sworn by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II was defective as not in accordance with the Coronation Oath agreed upon and enacted in An Act For Establishing the Coronation Oath 1689 and affirmed in the Act of Settlement 1701, both of which were duly passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent. As I understand it, the effects of the defective oath are first that the succession of Queen Elizabeth II was invalid and she never obtained the power to give Royal Assent to legislation and second that there has been since her coronation no lawfully-appointed Governor General, no lawfully-convened Parliament, and no lawfully-appointed judiciary. Thus, all Canadian legislation ostensibly enacted since her coronation, including the Income Tax Act, is void for want of a valid consent of the Crown. (Mr. Lindsay makes the same submissions about the Coronation Oath sworn in 1937 by King George VI, but that is of no direct relevance to this case.)
. . . . . . .
[31] Mr. Lindsay submits Verhoeven J. erred in relying on Kennedy, Bruno, and Jarvis because his arguments were not considered in those cases. He contends the oath sworn in 1953 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II bound her constitutionally and contractually to uphold and enforce the laws of God as they are set out in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which are the supreme source of law as opposed to Parliament, the Crown, and the rule of law itself. He submits, as well, that by virtue of the judges’ oath of allegiance to the Queen, the judges too are bound to enforce Biblical principles. He says further that Verhoeven J. erred in finding the issues arising out of her Coronation Oath to be non-justiciable. In his submission, the Coronation Oath is a contract and Verhoeven J. erred in failing to recognize and act on his private right to rely on the Queen’s promises. As an adjunct of this submission, he argues that the Crown is estopped from prosecuting him for offences that are contrary to the contract. Further, he argues compulsory taxation amounts to theft of his property contrary to his constitutional right to property and as such is “a breach of contract and of no force and effect”. As well, he contends, taxation amounts to “extortion, slavery, trespass and other violations of God’s laws” and that he has chosen not to be bound by secular legislation, as is his right as “a free will full liability, flesh and blood living man created by God”. This summary, I think, captures the gist of Mr. Lindsay’s position.
[32] Mr. Lindsay’s points are so numerous and perplexing that to attempt to answer every point he makes would be to descend into judicial quicksand. Suffice it to say on a broader level that I think there is no possibility that Mr. Lindsay could persuade this Court that the laws of God as he understands them supersede the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the citizens of this country. Similarly, there is no chance he could succeed in his argument that the issues he identifies as arising out of the Coronation Oath are justiciable. In my view, the Court would conclude the resolution of these questions is political and is beyond the proper constitutional role of the courts in our system of government. As well, I think Mr. Lindsay has no chance of success on his argument that, as a private citizen, he has private rights under a contract made between the Crown and Parliament, to which he was not a party, and that he has the right to contract out of the operation of legislation upon him. Further, his argument that he has a constitutionally-protected right to property is bound to fail. Property rights were deliberately excluded from the constitutional protection afforded under s. 7 of the Charter: see P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada 5th ed. Supp., looseleaf (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at 47-17 to 47-18.
As Mowe said about this;
So from these passages we can see that the Lindsay version of the Coronation Oath argument is clearly quite different from that advanced in R. v. JAH. The latter focuses on the Phony Scone Stone and Queen Elizabeth II’s failure to exterminate homosexuals and witches, while Lindsay's concern is a more discrete issue: is taxation stealing according to the Bible and/or contrary to the Biblical prohibition on usury because taxes pay for government debt?
Lindsay’s litigation also precedes the 2011 R. v. JAH trial by many years.
I think it’s safe to conclude that Lindsay’s approach to the Coronation Oath is original and unrelated to the UK variation.
Notably, Lindsay’s argument is very closely related to the concepts advanced by “minister” Belanger of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, which may explain why Belanger has so little good to say about Lindsay – Lindsay’s case law severely undermines Belanger’s position.
So there you go, HRH and the Freemen are intertwined with almost all of our gurus trying to make up their own monarchy based reasons why Canadian law does not apply to them.
In more Psam Frank news he may be planning another try at taking his doomed theories to court. He's currently on Face Book fishing around for a lawyer to help him with something to do with his voting sysyem. Given what I assume are his finances I also assume he is talking pro bono assistance.
Samuel Michael Frank
October 8 at 10:52am ·
I wish to find a lawyer who is willing to consider the possibility that there is no demonstrable justification in a free and democratic society for only periodically offering the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly instead of making this right available to be exercised at any time that a citizen wishes. If You know a lawyer that has an open mind, please let Me know.
Master Keighley said at Frank's doomed B. C. Supreme Court action;
Keighley:
Well no, I think we need to deal with it today. There’s nothing to prevent you from trying again until this court indicates that you can’t try anymore. If the court considers that you’ve serially brought actions which are unsustainable an order can be made under provisions of the Supreme Court Act to prevent you from bringing specific further claims. I’m not going to make that today. I’m not aware of any pattern on your behalf in doing that but I”m gonna deal with this one today, and if you feel that your claim is nonetheless sustainable well I suppose until the court orders otherwise you can try again, but I suggest that you would speak to a lawyer before trying again.
Keighley:
I’m not going to tell you how to do it right. That’s for you and a lawyer to figure out, but you haven’t done it right this time. I cant’ give you legal advice. The possible consequences that it starts getting expensive for you because without legal representation start claims which are found to be unsustainable and have costs awarded against you time after time, it seems to me the more sensible approach is to deal with the front end of the issue, go and talk to a lawyer , find out from the lawyer whether the claims that you want to bring are sustainable, and if so how it should be done. I’m not trying to drum up business for the legal profession, I’m just trying to make it more cost effective for you.
You should talk to a lawyer Mr Frank, sooner rather than later.
It looks like Psam is taking Master Keighley's advice.
