Can people be humanly sane and not unite as the Invincible Triad against the Trilateral Commission

Etc

Thoroughly documented in two case scenarios Victim and now the Accused deliberately caused my arrest to bring the evidence www.cdfji.ca before the courts, proving irrefutably they are not COC JIJ Court of Competent Jurisdiction Independent Judiciary www.frankygoestocourt.com Terres Trials www.2012t-t.com

Traditional Rhetoric Instil Belief Unscrupulous Nuances Artificial Logistics They appoint the establishment enacting routinely followed while suggesting they are to protect the people from their policies Thoroughly documented

www.cdfji.ca
Personal case scenario

God rest ye merry gentlemen Carol Constitution Act Rule of Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights. The Charter is intended to

protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada

****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government.
It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4] The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of John Diefenbaker in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the [5]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Tradition Entrench Corporation Tyranny <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>><<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution Act, 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the

Supremacy of God
2

and

The Rule of Law

The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada - Lawyers Rules of Conduct 103) Interpretation (f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every situation, and a lawyer should observe the rules in the spirit as well as in the letter.

Rule of Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include

a clear separation of powers,

legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law. The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use"
publicly disclosed laws 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. 31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority 32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General

The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest". Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General. There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister. The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states: The Attorney General, (a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council; (b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; (c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario; (d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature; (e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government; (f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature; (g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agency; (h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature; (i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices; (j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. " What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.

Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))

4

The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition. As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties. The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid. In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers. Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d)) One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code. The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day. This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys. An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function. Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed. Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f)) The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility. The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation. The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all private member's bills. The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration. The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet. Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation. Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d)) In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only

to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake. This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights. Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c)) A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.
Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Tradition Entrench Corporation Tyranny <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>><<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>><<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights [3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4] Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5]Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the 7

early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[8] All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9] Universal Declaration of Human Rights

NOT LEGALLY BINDING

The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

though not legally binding, was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues.
A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 20052006 fiscal year was approximately US$5 billion, 2.5 billion (compared to approximately US$1.5 billion, 995 million for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[60] UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1 January 2011, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the Republic of Korea.[61] Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations. Since their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe 8

shortages during economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services because of insufficient funding.[62] It has received barely a quarter of the total it needed for the 09/10 financial year.
Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or wellbeing entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.[52] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:
In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[54] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004,

but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[55] <!--[if !supportLineBr Attorney General, guardian of the public interest
Attorney General Roman 13 RUN Responsibly Unaccountable Nuances 13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters 9

within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13. Admissions (2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2). Protection of Minister (3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3).

eakNewLine]--> <!--[endif]--> www.sapboat.com

Sanity a popular Belief of artificial Truths

DTs Democratic Tyranny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is

the belief
that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1]

It is often contrasted with the concept of

parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty. 10

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a

"tyranny of the majority"

in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively [15] and procedurally.[16] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19] Uncle Sam vs Uncle TOM Tyranny of Majority SEE

11

Self Exploiting Enslavement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lygVXgumY&feature=related Vatican Rome Italy - The Crown Corporate State of London, London England - District of Columbia Washington USA Implicit Complicit Explicit ICE Insidious Capitalist Emperors Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to develop and control wealth, as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1] Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian", while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population, as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent. 12

Give me DTs or give me Death Keeps the MOI busy

Truth kills truth saves Save yourself and the world http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490#
In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a militaryintelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU Truth Kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9dgqKmJ50&feature Fema Detention Camps Marshall Law

http://www.infowars.com/obama-implementing-martial-law-coup/ It's a gas when they say hey you can't do that ... I got rights dontcha know!!!!!!! I'm tellin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aD8TU3VC-Q&feature=related 13

A long video far surpassing the attention span of the MOI Majority of Ignorance Terres Trials have begun accelerated in prevention of WW III http://www.2012t-t.com Pertinent knowledge must rapidly spread. www.1or666.com will get you there Simple truths radiation world wide will only annihilate the 666 Download the information before it and I are annihilated The means to attack as simple as their own legislation www.edictdefacto.com In Canada the Constitution Humanity Spirit vs Attorney General Satanic Roman 13 On July 9 2012 Franky went to Court to set a date Docket 13 Coincidence? Will Franky get to court? www.invincibletriad.org

14