Oh yeah the sad thing is that the author David complained to the United Nations, as we know and as you will read since the UN are the world evil doer, they with the aid of the secret service will just probably send killers to kill everybody who try to spread the truth facts which is found in this document.
The truth about Canada: a foreign corporation fiscal racket
Complaint to the U.N. Human Rights Committee on Human Rights violations in "Canada"
David Butterfield - Human Rights Defender 21 Oct 2005 21:54 GMT
This Complaint to the U.N., based on facts established by "government's" own documents, their copyright protected Statutes, Constitutional Law experts opinions, and my fifteen years of research, study, and interpretation of "government's" so-called "laws". The evidence referred concludes that: all governments are pure corporations (corporate governments de facto); their "laws" apply only to corporate entities which they create; the provinces are independent nations and have been since the Statute of Westminster, 1931; a "Federal Government" has never, ever been lawfully created; all inhabitants of what is believed to be "Canada" are victims of numerous crimes against humanity including but not limited to: occupation by and subjugation to foreign agents imposing foreign corporate policies as "law"; being held in a form of slavery and involuntary servitude to the corporate governments de facto through the levy of more than 170 unlawful and pursuant to legal definitions, inapplicable taxes in each "province"; in all "law", Federal and Provincial, the term "person" means a "corporation" and the term "province" means either the Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, or Nunavat, and much more.
The following is the cover letter to the binder referred to in the Complaint to the U.N. Human Rights Committee:
With authority provided by Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly
David Butterfield
Educator and Defender of Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Sergio Vieira de Mello July 26, 2003.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Kindly forward 2nd copy included: To the Chief Prosecutor – The World Court, The Hague.
Request for remedial action to correct and amend:
1.) legal condition of anarchy existing in all provinces, which “in law”, are not “part of Canada”;
2.) all governments are unlawful, corporate governments de facto;
3.) all statutes, including the Criminal Code of Canada, apply only to artificial persons created by the corporate governments de facto and/or to individuals who unknowingly waive their human rights and unknowingly enter “master/servant” employment relationships under implied
“contracts of service”;
4.) all individuals have been deceptively denied their 3rd natural right to “one’s own property”;
5.) no avenue of resolve is available domestically, all courts are courts of commerce, not of law;
6.) numerous crimes against humanity, including but not limited, occupation and subjugation by and to, agents of a foreign power;
I am an Educator and Defender of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, an inhabitant of the free and sovereign, independent province of British Columbia. I hereby affirm that the facts reported herein this Request for Remedial Action, are to the best of my knowledge, the absolute truth. As to any information stated herein as provided by a third party, I verily believe that information to be true.
1.I have spent approximately thirteen years researching, studying, and interpreting constitutional law, statute law and instruments of human rights law.
2.Between 1994 and 2001, I operated an educational organization of my own creation, which operated throughout all of the provinces, commonly believed to be part of Canada. Through this organization I forwarded factual information relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and natural human rights and fundamental freedoms.
3.It is self-evidenced by all documents currently identified and relied upon as being the “Canadian Constitution”, that they are in fact, Acts of the United Kingdom’s Parliament, partly because of this, I have abandoned providing information related to the so-called “Canadian” Constitution. Neither the British North America Act, 1867, (B.N.A. Act) nor the “Constitution Act, 1982” are “Canadian” at all and neither have they been ratified by the inhabitants of any one of the provinces, so to confirm their acceptance of them as their constitution. Further, since December 11th, 1931, the provinces have not legally been a part of Canada. As is such, I am now exercising my right and responsibility to act in the capacity of an Educator and Defender of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. (page two)
Request for Remedial Action – page two
4.Statute of Westminster, December 11th, 1931
On December 11th, 1931, the Statute of Westminster, signed by King George V, came into force. By this statute, the King abdicated his sovereign power, transferring it to the people, giving them and their Colonies their independence from the British Monarchy. King George V, thereby became the last British
Monarch to possess lawful authority over another human being. Further, with the Monarchy removed from the equation and with all former Colonies then becoming independent nations, both the Office of the Governor General (Government/Monarchy liaison) and the “Central Legislature” became redundant.
Further to this, a “federal government” has never, ever been lawfully created by either the B.N.A.
Act, or the people of the provinces. The B.N.A. Act created only a “Central Legislature” and only to
deal with matters of import to all of the Colonies which entered into the B.N.A. agreement. This was
confirmed in the 2nd reading of the British North America Bill, as presented on February 19th, 1867.
Neither has there ever been a lawful “union” or “confederation” of the Colonies, as such a condition
can only be created by states in direct possession of the sovereign power, not by Colonies operating
on delegated power. The Colonial Office in London did not possess the power or authority to create
such a condition on behalf of the people of the Colonies.
5.The B.N.A. Act was merely a temporary agreement to allow strength to all involved, in defending
against the military attacks being made on the Colonies, by United States forces. Aside from being
historical facts of record, all of this was confirmed in the November 8th, 1945 presentation to the
House of Commons by then Member of Parliament, Walter F. Kuhl. A Member for the Jasper-Edson riding
in Alberta, from 1935-49. Being the pre-eminent constitutional authority of the time, Mr. Kuhl worked
in conjunction with other eminent legal experts, and together interpreted the effects of the Statute
of Westminster on the temporary situation as was created by the B.N.A. Act. Walter Kuhl, advised the
Members of the House, that legally the provinces had been, and remained in anarchy, since December
11th, 1931, with coming into force of the Statute of Westminster. For whatever reason, perhaps not
wanting to risk losing their jobs and assumed authority, the Members of the House hearing his
proposal, apparently reacted in a similar fashion to those presiding in 1931. And, other than the
creation of a corporate government de facto, which supplanted the government de jure and remains in
power to this day, nothing has been done to change the legal condition of anarchy existing within
every province. All of this is explained by Walter Kuhl, in the included copies of his speech; his
presentation on the interpretation of the Statute of Westminster; his letter to the Hon. Rene
Levesque, Parti Quebecois leader – Premier-elect, for the province of Quebec. See “House of Commons
Debates–OFFICIAL REPORT – SPEECH of Mr. W. F. KUHL” and “CANADA A COUNTRY WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION”,
all included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “A”.
6.The fact that the governments currently operating in Ottawa and all of the provinces are “de facto”,
is partly evidenced on the Governor General’s own website, where it states that she is “Canada’s de
facto Head of State”. A printout of that page and Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary definitions of the
terms “de facto” and “de jure” are included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “B”.]
7.In January, 2003, it was confirmed in an email exchange I had with the Legislative Services Branch of Justice Canada, that no statutory instrument exists that provides a definition of “Canada” as including any of the geographical areas known as “provinces” (spelled with a lower-case “p”). This appears to confirm the well-secreted effects of the Statute of Westminster; whereby the provinces
became independent nations. As will be shown in this Request for Remedial Action, the “provinces”
(lower-case “p”) are not included in any statutory instrument operating, neither as being “a part of
Canada”, nor as being under the jurisdiction of any law, federal or provincial. This as result of the
definition given for the term “province”, in both the federal and provincial Interpretation Acts, as
being either the Northwest, Yukon or Nunavat Territory. See email exchange with Justice Canada
included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab "C".
(page three)
Request for Remedial Action – page three
8.Employing the word “include(s)” in legal definitions
In the interpretation section of every statutory instrument operating, most of which are written
in an “internal corporate language” (spelling “words” with all capital letters, contrary to the
rules of grammar of English and contrary to the Official Languages Act), these governments de facto
have chosen to employ one of the most commonly misused and confused words of the English language,
the word “includes”, applied alternately with the word “means”. By doing this, the entire purpose of
the “interpretation” section is lost. Apparently, this is quite intentional, as the misuse and
resultant confusion caused by this word has proven either financially or emotionally fatal for many,
if not most, and in some cases even physically fatal. People have committed suicide as result of
threats, intimidation and humiliation used against them by agents of the government de facto who
also operate based upon misinterpretation of these statutes. I am aware of about ten suicides in the
last five years. Lawyers and accountants, have also been caused to misinterpret and incorrectly
apply these laws at the expense of their clients, who would not otherwise come within their limited
jurisdiction. This, I know for a fact, as I now re-educate these professionals and teach them what
they were not taught in the government orchestrated curriculum offered them by the schools, Colleges
and Universities. Certainly all of the collection officers and auditors at the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency also operate based upon the same misinterpretations and misuse of the word “include(s)”. Confirmation that this word is misused and creates confusion, is found at page 234 of “The Canadian Style A Guide to Writing and Editing”, as written by the Translation Bureau, a special operating agency of the Department of Public Works Canada. However, while the “Guide” identifies the word as being commonly misused and confused, their description of its usage perpetuates its misuse
and the resulting confusion/misinterpretation. This “Guide” describes “include”, to connote “only
part of a whole”, and also wrongly identifies the word “comprise” as it’s antonym, which implies
"all” of the whole. This is contrary to the proper usage of “include” as shown by both Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage and a Judge’s dictionary from the Law Library of the Vancouver Court House, which identifies “comprise” as a synonym of “include”. This is also confirmed by the maxim in law: “the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others”. Further, the French word equivalent of “include” is “comprise”. As the word is used in these Interpretation sections, 99% of the time, one can substitute “include(s)” with the word “means”. See excerpt from The Canadian Style; excerpt from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage; excerpt from Judge’s dictionary, all included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab "D".
9. Interpretation sections of statutes
The Criminal Code of Canada
Further confirmation of corporate status of the governments de facto; the deceptive language used; fact that their “corporate laws” apply to their own corporate entities; and that anarchy exists in every province, is found partly in the interpretation section of the Criminal Code of Canada. Here, the terms “every one, person, owner”, are initially, clearly defined as corporate entities/artificial persons, but it goes on to also include: “inhabitants of counties, parishes, municipalities or other districts in relation to the acts and things that they are capable of doing and owning respectively.” This is most confusing and deceptive and most stop right there, satisfied that they are an “inhabitant” of one of those, believed to be “geographical areas”. However, as every interpretation section begins with the words “In this Act”, one must realize that each law is like a separate box and words can have totally different meanings “in law” (inside the box) than they do “outside of law”, on the street. If one knew the need to look further to find what “municipality” means “In this Act”, if it’s used in the geographical or in the corporate sense, they would find its definition to read: “the corporation of a city, town,village, county, township, parish or other territorial or local division of a province, the inhabitants of which are incorporated or are entitled to hold property collectively for a public purpose.” Pursuant to “The Canadian Style”, lower-case “m” = geographical area; upper-case “M” = a corporate entity. So, even though the word is displayed in the previous definition as being a geographical area by spelling it with a lower-case “m”, it is actually and deceptively meant as being a “corporation”. (page four)
Request for Remedial Action – page four
9. continued
One must realize that the term “province” (lower-case “p”), as used in the previous definition, is not re-defined by the Criminal Code and it therefore carries the meaning given it by the Federal Interpretation Act; where “province” actually means one of the “territories”. I recently showed all of this to a lawyer, who has practiced criminal law for the past twenty years, all he could say was, “I can’t deny a thing you’ve said.” He was shocked and appalled by those definitions and his realization of “who” precisely, the Criminal Code actually has jurisdiction over. This is but the ‘tip of the iceberg’. See excerpts from the interpretation section of the Criminal Code of Canada; excerpt from “The Canadian Style” explaining the effect of capitalizing the first letter of generic geographical terms, all included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “E”.
10. The federal Interpretation Act
The federal Interpretation Act provides a blanket set of definitions for words and terms used in
all federal legislation. It is like a federal dictionary for the interpretation of federal statutes. The only instance where these definitions would not apply, would be in the case that a different
definition was provided in the particular statute being interpreted. The following are some of the
definitions provided in the federal Interpretation Act: ( underlines inserted for accentuation )
“Canada” - “Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the
territorial sea of Canada;”
“Canadian waters”- “includes the territorial sea of Canada and the internal waters of Canada;”
“corporation” -“does not include a partnership that is considered to be a separate entity under
provincial law;” (writer’s insert: “provincial” means “territorial”)
“province” - “province means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the
Northwest Territories and Nunavat;”
* Writer’s insert: no definition is given for the term “Province”, spelled with a capital “P”.
"person” - “person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;”
“Governor”, “Governor General” or “Governor of Canada” – “means the Governor General of
Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government
of Canada on behalf of and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title that
officer is designated;”
“legislative assembly”, “legislative council” or “legislature” includes the Lieutenant Governor
in Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, as constituted
before September 1, 1905, the Commissioner in Council of the Yukon Territory, the
Commissioner in Council of the Northwest Territories, and the Legislature of Nunavat;”
See excerpts from the federal Interpretation Act included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “F”.
Writers insert: Gage’s Dictionary of Canadian English defines “legislative” as:
“1. having to do with making laws; legislative reforms 2. having the duty and
power of making laws: Parliament is a legislative body. 3. ordered by law”.
The B.N.A. Act did not provide any territorial government with the “power of making laws”, the
“Distribution of Legislative Powers” found at section 91 through and including 95 of the B.N.A. Act, distributed the “power of making laws” only to the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the provinces. So how and why would the Territories come to have a “Legislative” Assembly? (page five)
Request for Remedial Action – page five
11. The Canada Lands Survey Act – Interpretation section - See excerpt from the interpretation section of the Canada Lands Survey Act, providing the definition of “Canada Lands”, which is not including any of the geographical areas known outside of law as “provinces”, also included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “G”.
12. The Province of British Columbia “INTERPRETATION ACT”
Just as with the federal Interpretation Act, the Provincial “INTERPRETATION ACT” provides a blanket set of definitions for all “Provincial” legislation and the same applies regarding different or contrary definitions being provided in a particular Act. Following are some of the definitions provided in the Provincial “INTERPRETATION ACT”. ( underlines and bold text inserted for accentuation )
“corporation” “means an incorporated association, company, society, municipality or other
incorporated body, where and however incorporated, and includes a corporation sole
other than Her Majesty or the Lieutenant Governor;”
“government” or “government of British Columbia” “means Her Majesty in right of British Columbia;”
“Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”,
“the King”, “the Crown” or “the Sovereign” "means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth;”
Writer’s insert: the “primary role of the Queen for Canada” is defined by Peter W. Hogg, the Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, in his book, “Constitutional Law of Canada”. He is arguably the top expert in “Canada” on constitutional law. A copy of that excerpt from his book is included with this Request. This will show that the Queen is not the Sovereign and is merely a ceremonial figurehead without any lawful authority whatsoever.
Gage’s Dictionary of Canadian English defines “realm” as “1. a kingdom 2. a region or sphere in which something rules or prevails. 3. a particular field of something: the realm of biology.” This word comes from the Latin word “regalis” and one is directed to “see REGAL”, the first definition of which reads, “belonging to a monarch”. As well as the Statute of Westminster, it appears that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples does not apply here in “Canada” either.
“Great Seal” “means the Great Seal of the Province;”
Writer’s insert: this capital “P” province is the corporation.
“Province” “means the Province of British Columbia or Her Majesty in right of British
Columbia as the context requires;”
“province” “when used as meaning a part of Canada, includes the Northwest Territories, the Yukon
Territory and Nunavat;”
Writer’s insert: the definitions of “province” provided by both the federal and provincial
Interpretation Acts, clearly confirms the independence of the provinces as granted by the
Statute of Westminster, 1931. (page six)
Request for Remedial Action – page six
12. continued
The Province of British Columbia “INTERPRETATION ACT”
“person” “includes a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law;”
“minor” “means a person under the age of majority;”
Writer’s insert: A “minor” is then, a corporation “under the age of majority”.
“mentally disordered person”, “mentally incompetent person”,
“mentally ill person”, or “person with a mental disorder” “means a person with a mental disorder as
defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act;”
Writer’s insert: So all of these terms are actually speaking of a corporation with a mental disorder”.
“municipality” “includes a city, town, village, district or township incorporated by or under an Act, but does not include a regional district or an improvement district defined in the Local Government Act, and does not include a village where the Lieutenant Governor in Council has, by regulation applicable to villages generally or to one or more villages, declared that a village is deemed not to be a municipality within the meaning of any Act, other than the Local Government Act;”
“rural area” “means a territory not organized as a municipality;”
See excerpts from the British Columbia Interpretation Act and “Constitutional Law of Canada”,included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “H”.
13. I will now refer to some of the most deceptive and financially devastating of all statutory
instruments, those that have held almost the entire innocently ignorant population in financial
servitude, the various tax related statutes. These statutes will show that they only apply to
corporate entities created by the corporate governments de facto and to other “servants” of
their corporate structure of government. All of this is aside from the fact that these statutes,
all coming from the Parliament of “Canada”, are being enforced within the free and sovereign,
independent provinces which are not in law, “a part of Canada”. The provinces are occupied by
foreign agents, who themselves, remain innocently ignorant of the fraud they perpetuate.
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act - Interpretation section:
“Minister” “means the Minister of National Revenue, appointed to serve at pleasure
by commission under the Great Seal.”
Section “6.(1) The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include
all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned
to any department, board or agency of the Government of Canada other
than the Agency, relating to
s.s. “(d)” “internal taxes, unless otherwise provided, including income taxes;”
See excerpt from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act included with this Request and
found in this binder at Tab “I”. (page seven)
Request for Remedial Action – page seven.
13. continued
If “income taxes” are “internal taxes”, then one must conclude that the “taxpayer” must also exist
"internally” in order to be subject to this tax. Perhaps the “taxpayer” is actually a corporate
trust, created and recorded “internally” on the corporate governments books. Perhaps this is “what”
is represented on all pieces of “identification” issued by these corporate governments and by
banks, where a “name” is printed in an internal corporate language, entirely in upper-case
lettering.
Why wouldn’t the “taxpayer” be a corporate trust? The definitions provided in their “laws” clearly
show those “laws” can only apply to corporate entities that they themselves have created.
Perhaps the corporate government de facto created this trust at the time of registration of the
live birth of a child, otherwise referred to as a “future work unit”. Perhaps the corporate
government receives a line of credit from the International Monetary Fund for each corporate
trust created, after all, it is the “taxpayer” that will generate the revenue from innocently
ignorant individuals, and from which the interest on the so-called “national debt” will be paid.
Perhaps there is an answer here to the question of the 5 million unaccounted for S.I.N.’s that were
issued to fictitious names, possibly the corporate government de facto had a motive. Perhaps they
also receive an additional line of credit for each “Social Insurance Number” (S.I.N.) issued to
unsuspecting, innocently ignorant natural persons, who are all caused to believe that the “SI.N.”
was issued to them personally, in spite of the fact that the “name” shown on it is not printed in
English, but rather entirely in upper-case letters. As well, each individual is caused to believe
they cannot exercise their natural right to “the unmolested pursuit of one’s trade or occupation”
unless they have a “Social Insurance Number”. Perhaps this is also why every single piece of
property, be it an automobile, boat, land, or a bank account, is registered in the all capital
letter “name”. Perhaps this is why “income tax return” forms and all other government and bank
forms, ask for “first names” and “last names”. Human beings do not have “first names” and “last
names”, we have “given names” and a “surname”. From all of this, it appears that every time an
individual registers anything with this corporate structure of government, the individual agrees to
share ownership of that property with the corporate government. Perhaps this is why it is also so
easy for any of these corporate governments to seize any piece of this type property, after all, it
is registered in the “name” of their own corporate trust and the individual who actually worked to
pay for that property, simply has the right to enjoy, maintain, insure and be liable for it. Looks
like some form of slavery to me, or in the very least, financial servitude. Whatever it actually
is, it is definitely a deceptive manner in which to deny everyone their 3rd natural right to “one’s
own property”. I cannot believe or accept that this all capital letter name is result of their
highly technologically advanced computers inability to print a human being’s name in English.
Further, every time that I have applied to a government’s agent for fishing or hunting license, I
have asked the agent why they are printing my name on the license, entirely in capital letters, and
every one of them has said they are told by the government, that they must print the names in all
capital letters.
14. Income Tax Act of Canada – Part XVll Interpretation section
“In this Act” the word person is re-defined slightly differently than in the federal Interpretation
Act, so, even though it still describes only “artificial persons/legal fictions” the definition
provided here is the one that applies “In this Act”.
“person” “or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any
entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part 1 on all or part of
the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators, of a succession,
administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the
law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;”
“individual” “means a person other than a corporation; (page eight)
Request for Remedial Action – page eight
14. continued Income Tax Act of Canada – Part XVll Interpretation section]
“active business” “in relation to any business carried on by a taxpayer resident in Canada,
means any business carried on by the taxpayer other than a specified
investment business or a personal services business;”
“common-law partnership” "means the relationship between two persons who are common-law partners of
each other;”
“corporation” “includes an incorporated company;”
“employee” “includes officer;”
“employer” “in relation to an officer, means the person from whom the officer receive the
officer’s remuneration;”
“employment” “means the position of an individual in the service of some other person
(including Her Majesty or a foreign state or sovereign) and ‘servant’ or
employee’ means a person holding such a position;”
“office” “means the position of an individual entitling the individual to a fixed or
ascertainable stipend or remuneration and includes a judicial office, the office
of a minister of the Crown, the office of a member of the senate or House
of Commons of Canada, a member of a legislative assembly or a member
of a legislative or executive council and any other office, the incumbent of
which is elected by popular vote or is elected or appointed in a
representative capacity and also includes the position of a corporation
director, and ‘officer’ means a person holding such an office;”
Writer’s insert: The definition of “office” tells us that, with the exception of “a corporation director”, the only others who are considered to be an “officer/employee/servant” “In this Act”, are the governments own “servants”, those who hold “office” within the government. The “corporation director” is the individual whom registered his company with the corporate structure of government; thereby agreeing to share ownership of his company and become a “servant/ employee/officer” of the government by committing to collect taxes for it from all of his workers and all of his company’s customers. Confirmation of fact, that this statute only applies to the corporate entities of the government’s own creation and to others who have unknowingly volunteered themselves into position of “servant”, of and to that government. However, no one, including Crown Prosecutors on order of the Court, has been able to acquire a copy of the authentic statute entitled the Income Tax Act of Canada. Contrary to section 19 of the Canada Evidence Act, which stipulates: “copies from the Queen’s Printer are evidence of the Act and of it’s contents”, people are prosecuted/convicted every day, based only upon copyright protected private publications of this Act, all containing a disclaimer: may contain errors and/or omissions.
“legal representative” “of a taxpayer means a trustee in bankruptcy, an assignee, a liquidator,
a curator, a receiver of any kind, a trustee, an heir, an administrator, an
executor, a liquidator of succession, a committee, or any other like
person, administering, winding up, controlling or otherwise dealing in a
representative or fiduciary capacity with the property that belongs or
belonged to, or that is or was held for the benefit of, the taxpayer or the
taxpayer’s estate;"
“non-resident” “means not a resident in Canada See excerpts from the Interpretation section of the Income Tax Act of Canada included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “J”. (page nine)
Request for Remedial Action – page nine
15. Employment Insurance Act - Interpretation section
“claimant” “means a person who applies or has applied for benefits under this Act;”
“employer” “includes a person who has been an employer and, in respect of remuneration of an
individual referred to as a sponsor or co-ordinator of a project in paragraph 5(1)(e), it
includes that individual;”
Employment Insurance Act – section 5(1) “Subject to subsection (2), Insurable employment
is "(e)” “employment in Canada of an individual as the sponsor or co-ordinator
of an employment benefits project.”
“insured person” “means a person who is or has been employed in insurable employment;”
“insurable employment” “has the meaning assigned by section 5;”
Employment Insurance Act section 5(1)
“(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express
or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral,
whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the
employer or some other person and whether the earnings are
calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the
piece, or otherwise;”
“(b) employment in Canada as described in paragraph (a) by Her Majesty in
right of Canada;”
“(c) service in the Canadian Forces or in a police force;”
“(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5);”
“(e)” (writer’s insert: see above after definition of “employer”)
“provincial law” “means the provisions of any Act of the legislature of a province authorizing, or
entitling a person to, the payment of benefits under a plan established by or
under that Act.
Writer’s insert: this is a federal statute that does not re-define the word “province” so the
definition provided by the federal Interpretation Act applies, and that is, a “territory”.
It appears that this Act only applies to corporate entities working in a master/servant
employment relationship created by and under a contract of service, in Canada, which
excludes all of the geographical areas commonly known as provinces. Yet the corporate
government boasted a 17 billion dollar surplus from E.I. premiums collected from everyone.
See excerpts from the Interpretation section of the Employment Insurance Act included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “K”.
16. Canada Pension Plan – Interpretation section
“employee” “includes an officer;”
“employer” “means a person liable to pay salary, wages or other remuneration for
services performed in employment, and in relation to an officer includes
the person from whom the officer receives his remuneration;” (page ten)
Request for Remedial Action – page ten
16. continued - Canada Pension Plan – Interpretation section
“employment” “means the performance of services under an express or implied contract
of service or apprenticeship, and includes the tenure of an office;”
“office” “means the position of an individual entitling him to a fixed or ascertainable
stipend or remuneration and includes a judicial office, the office of a
minister of the Crown, the office of a lieutenant governor, the office of a
member of a legislative assembly or a member of a legislative or
executive council and any other office the incumbent of which is
elected by popular vote or is elected or appointed in a representative
capacity, and also includes the position of a corporation director, and
‘officer’ means a person holding such an office;”
See excerpts from the Interpretation section of the Canada Pension Plan Act included with this
Request and found in this binder at Tab “L”.
Writer’s insert: Again, it appears that this Act does not apply to any member of the general
working population, as they do not hold an “office” and therefore are neither an “officer” nor
an “employee”. Yet, workers and employers pour billions of dollars into this scam every year,
simply because they have been kept ignorant and told that they must make contributions into it.
17. Worker’s Compensation Act of British Columbia – Interpretation section
The Worker’s Compensation Act incurs a huge financial burden on business owners, in most cases, well over $100,000.00 annually. This Act again relies upon the misuse and confusion created by the word “includes” and provides definitions that give meanings “In this Act”, which are opposite to those held for words or terms, outside of law.
“accident” “includes a wilful and intentional act, not being the act of the worker, and also
includes a fortuitous event occasioned by a physical or natural cause;”
Writer’s insert: Here, an “accident” is not an accident and not one caused by the worker. And,
an “accident” is also a ‘chance happening’ by an act “of nature”. The term “physical” is not defined “In this Act” so, its meaning is not really known here.
Gage’s Dictionary of Canadian English: “physical”: “1. of the body: physical exercise.
2. of matter; material: The tide is a physical force. 3. according to laws of nature: It is a
physical impossibility to stop the earth’s movement around the sun. 4. of the science of
physics.”
These definitions point mostly to the word as, in some way meaning, “of nature”.
“compensation” “includes medical aid;”
medical aid” “when used in Part 1, includes the things which the board under this Act is
empowered to provide for injured workers;”
Writer’s insert: This Act only contains Part 1 and Part 2, “compensation” is not defined at all in
Part 2, and that Part, in an internal corporate language, is entitled: “LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS IN
INDUSTRIES NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PART 1” and refers to private legal actions for damages and/or reliance on the “Family Compensation Act”. Therefore, “In this Act”, “compensation” has nothing to do
with reimbursement of wage loss by the Worker’s Compensation Board. (page eleven)
Request for Remedial Action – page eleven
17. continued Worker’s Compensation Act – Interpretation section
“person” “includes, for the purpose of section 10, his personal representative;”
Writer’s insert: Here, “person” is defined slightly differently than in the Provincial Interpretation
Act, but only “for the purpose of section 10”, throughout the rest of this Act, the definition given by the Provincial Interpretation Act applies.
“worker” “includes (a) a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or
apprenticeship, written or oral, express or implied, whether by way of manual
labour or otherwise;”
Writer’s insert: Here, a “worker” is a “corporation” working under a contract of service.
See excerpts from the Interpretation section of the Worker’s Compensation Act, included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “M”.
18. “SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA”
Unfortunately, there is no avenue for resolve available domestically, whereby one might challenge this massive public fraud and system of financial servitude. All of the courts are all corporately created, “courts of commerce”, generating revenues for the benefit of the corporate governments. Partial evidence of their corporate status appears on the court’s Official Seal, which represents the court’s name entirely in upper-case lettering. So even the courts are acting in contravention of the Official Languages Act of “Canada”, as well as disregarding the rules of grammar of the English language, but more importantly, they are not identifying the court with the name given it by the Act responsible for creating the court. All documents filed by lawyers and prosecutors alike, also identify both the name of the Court, and the names of the parties involved, in this all capital letter internal corporate language.
Further, this denies the individual their right to have their case heard and written in English,
contrary to the unlawful and invalid “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, as enacted by the United Kingdom’s Parliament. It would appear that all members of the legal profession are “kept ignorant” of the proper interpretation of these statutes, contrary to all international instruments providing guidelines for the Judiciary, prosecutors, and lawyers. It is obvious that they are “kept ignorant” of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms and the effect of their application to these corporate statutory instruments.
By the court charging filing fees, in excess of $200.00, to anyone wishing to commence an action, it is selling justice, contrary to the rules of common law as reflected in Article 40 of Magna Charta. The same goes for those exercising their right to appeal, they must pay exorbitant prices for multiple copies of transcripts, which they must purchase from court reporters for $6 –$7 per page.
It is obvious that neither Judges nor Prosecutors are capable of properly interpreting these so-called “laws”, making all of them negligent and derelict in their duty as students of law. Just as the Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia is either ignorant or complicit, as
he refused to make response to my letter relating the legal condition of anarchy in the province and the all capital letter courts of commerce. (page twelve)
Request for Remedial Action – page twelve
18. continued
Each day, people are prosecuted in Provincial Courts, under the Summary Conviction Rules of the Criminal Code of “Canada”, for failing to file income tax returns. They are then wrongfully convicted, ordered to file and fined. All of this, while not one of these statutes has jurisdiction over them as natural person inhabitants of the geographical areas known as provinces. Further, they do not hold an “office” in the government or act in capacity of directors of corporations. As I have said, people are even driven to suicide, like the prairie province mother of eight or nine children, who, after years of harassment by government tax collection Agents, in desperation gassed herself inside her vehicle and left a note instructing her husband to use the insurance money to pay-off the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This kind of psychological and financial harassment goes on every day, in every province, as result of this massive fraud. As long as the people remain afraid of the government this tyranny will continue to exist, for it is only when the government is afraid of the people, that democracy can be realized. See copy of the Official Seal of the “SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA”; copy of my two letters to Geoff Plant, the Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia;
included with this Request and found in this binder at Tab “N”.
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,…”
I put forth this plea and implore you to cause immediate remedial action to correct and amend all of these unacceptable conditions, most of which are contrary to all instruments of international law, not just to those relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Caveat
I have attempted to have these documents delivered directly to you personally, for I believe a threat to my life will soon exist. Therefore, if I do not receive a response from you within fifteen days from your receipt of this Request, wherein you provide advice of the actions that either you, or the Chief Prosecutor at the World Court, are taking toward the correction and amendment of these existing conditions and any possible prosecutions of the individuals responsible, then I will be compelled to act in protection of my own life by exposing all of this information to the general public, by way of the internet and other forms of independent media.
Should this defensive action cause full-blown anarchy to be realized, and individuals other than
myself become further victims of crimes, perpetrated by other criminally minded people, their
suffering and losses will lie directly in the hands of those who had the power and ability to
prevent that suffering and those losses, but neglected or refused to take action on their behalf.
“All that is required for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.”
With greatest sincerity and hope, that very soon, all members of the human family will be allowed to experience the enjoyment of total peace and freedom for all, I await your immediate and most appropriate response.
David Butterfield
Educator and Defender of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The following Complaint was received at the U.N. in Geneva on September 30, 2005.
By Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly
David Butterfield
Educator and Defender of Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
In Care Of: #00-00000 AAAAAAA Drive, Surrey, British Columbia (000) 000-0000
September 28, 2005.
The facts reported here will be very difficult for most to accept while under the false impression that what the world believes is “Canada”, is “the best country in the world to live in”, but, as ridiculous as they might appear and did to me, this complaint contains nothing but shocking factual truths agreed by lawyers to be irrefutable.
Pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
I. Information on the complainants:
Complainant: Surname: Butterfield Given names: David Edward (all according to hearsay)
Nationality: British Columbian (pursuant to domestic statutes)
Mailing Address: In care of: #
Said to have been born in Vancouver, British Columbia on October 6, 1949.
and on behalf of:
Complainant: Surname: Krist Given name: John (all according to hearsay)
Nationality: British Columbian (pursuant to domestic statutes)
Mailing Address: In care of: #
Said to have been born in Vancouver, British Columbia on March 12, 1957.
This communication submitted on behalf of the author and John Krist, with his knowledge and consent.
Please find enclosed “Notice of Appointment of Plenipotentiary” in relation to “all matters related to the protection of my natural and universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
II. State concerned/Articles violated
State: Canada (a “State”, spelled with capital “S”, is a corporation)
Articles violated:
Article 2. Denied rights recognized in the Covenant because of “other opinion”, “property, birth, or
other status” (or ignorance of the existence of the Covenant)
Article 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: persons whose rights or freedoms are
violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity
Article 9. (1.) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
(2.) Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for
his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
Article 10.(1.) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Complaint Pursuant to the ICCPR - page two
Articles violated:
Article 14. (1.) All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination
of any criminal charge against him, …everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal
established by law.
(2.) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
(3.) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing;
Article 26. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the
equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination
and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any
ground such as … property, birth or other status.
III. Exhaustion of domestic remedies/Application to other international procedures
Steps taken by the alleged victims to obtain redress:
My conclusion after fifteen years of involvement in these matters is that no “domestic remedies”
are available at all. The majority of the Judges/Courts have proven that human rights receive no
respect at all in their system. As the evidence here will show, all of their so-called “laws” apply only to “corporate entities” created by the corporate governments de facto, so why would “human” rights, be either taught or respected in their system?
As is such, in July of 2003, I sent two copies (one for the Chief Prosecutor/World Court) of a binder to Sergio Vieira de Mello, in Geneva. That binder was entitled, “Request for remedial action to correct and amend” and listed six conditions proven by the factual documents contained in the binder. Those “factual documents” comprised “government” publications, law dictionary definitions, copyright
protected “government Statutes”, and Hansard of House of Commons Debates. Sadly, Sergio was in Iraq and where he was to be murdered and no response ever came from the OHCHR. An easy-copy version of that binder is with this complaint.
John Krist and many other individuals, including myself, have served “Challenge of Jurisdiction and
Lawful Authority” based on evidence provided in the aforementioned binder, on the various Ministers
Responsible, including but not limited to, the Attorney General/Minister of Justice Canada, the Attorney General of (not “for”) the Province of British Columbia (capital “p” indicates corporation, not geographic area), and various of their Agents such as Prosecutors. Each recipient received advice in the Challenge that they had twenty days to respond and disprove the facts contained in the letter and binder which supported the Challenge and thereby prove their lawful authority. Advice was given that Estoppel in pais (Estoppel by conduct) would apply. The Canadian Law Dictionary definition of that Rule of Law and “principle of justice and equity” was provided therein. After twenty days, with no response received, they provided their tacit agreement with all facts contained in the Challenge. “He who is silent is understood to agree”. Affidavits were sent containing three exhibits: (a) a copy of the letter of Challenge (b) Delivery confirmation/signature certificates (c) Notice of Default, Dishonor and Self-Imposed Summary Judgment. After the 72 hour resurrection period allowed by law, they did not respond with an Affidavit exhibiting evidence to the contrary, leaving our Affidavit standing as the truth. Generic copy of Challenge letter and Affidavit is with this complaint. (three)
Complaint Pursuant to the ICCPR - page three
In the instant matter, I sent a formal Complaint to the Chief Judge/Provincial Court relating human rights violations committed by his Judges, received in his office August 18, 2005. I faxed a second letter to his office September 12, 2005 giving my new mailing address and requesting his “soon expected response” be sent to that address. I also briefed him on two more incidents of unethical conduct by two of his Judges. I drew his attention to Article 3. (a), (b), and (c) of the ICCPR. Another unanswered letter was faxed on September 16th and another on September 24, 2005. His failure to respond contravenes Provincial Court requirement of the Chief Judge, and violates Article 3 of the Covenant, as “an effective remedy” will not be provided through this process. Copies of the Complaint and subsequent faxed letters are with this Complaint. A copy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia “Complaint Process” is also with this Complaint.
The Chief Judge received advice in the original complaint of a civil action pending. The problems we face in bringing this action into the “Supreme Court of British Columbia” are multiple.
1.The evidence in the binder shows that the “Judges/Justices” of that court were appointed by a de facto Parliament (since the Statute of Westminster, 1931), which would necessitate a trial by jury in order to establish the closest thing to a “lawful court”, and;
2. They have written a “law” to protect themselves from the scrutiny of a jury, the “Crown Proceedings Act”. This will require each individual be named in their private capacity in the style of cause of the action and their official position or capacity can only be referred to as ‘what they happened to be doing at the time’. This does not assure us that they will allow a jury. Approx. 40 individual’s names will comprise the list.
3. The corporate governments de facto have applied a cost to “justice”, contrary to the Rules of Common
Law, Magna Charta, Article 40: “To no one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice.” The jury cost is in the area of $1500.00 up front, plus approximately $500.00 a day.
4. The court operating is not a lawful Court of Law, but rather a court of commerce as it was created by a corporation, which is further evidenced by the internal corporate language used in presenting its
corporate name: “SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA”. Such usage of all capital spelling, is
not allowed by Rules of Grammar of English, or by Rule 4 of the “SUPREME COURT RULES”. As well, and in spite of the fact that the “Supreme Court Act” clearly identifies the court thereby allegedly created
as the “Supreme Court of British Columbia” and further requires that the court have a Seal bearing the
words “Supreme Court of British Columbia”, it does not. The corporate language “words” on that Seal
read: “SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA”.
5. The Preliminary Hearing of un-represented “John KRIST” was scheduled to continue in Provincial Court
on September 22, 2005, but was adjourned over for a week. However, a civil jury trial such as above
would be at least one year to get it before the courts. In the Vancouver Courts, as last known,
trial dates were by lottery, pull a name from the hat for the next available court date. Will ours
be in the hat?
6. A case such as this will expose their Great Deception, which has allowed them to bring every individual into financial slavery through the levy of more than one hundred and seventy different taxes in this province. They do not want this to happen as it makes very clear, “who” is serving “who”. One of those taxes being “property taxes” which are levied on “dry” land properties in spite of the “Assessment Act,” which governs the levy of Property Taxes, defining the term “land” as:
”(a) land covered by water (b) sand and gravel (c) quarries ” (notice dry land is not included)
Apparently, a lawyer when asked to define “Law”, gave this response: “The masterful use of the language”. This is so true. As it is their own internal corporate language, they give words meanings completely opposite to those held on the street. As further example, the “British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act” defines “accident” as: “an intentional collision”. In all “law”, Federal and Provincial, the term “person” does not mean a human being, it means “a corporation”, this is including the meaning given in the “Criminal Code of Canada”, which only applies in the three Territories of which “Canada” is comprised pursuant to legal definitions. (four)
Complaint Pursuant to the ICCPR - page four
Stating all of these facts is necessary in order to allow all readers to fully understand this complaint and the level and depth of deception applied through the “Masterful use of the language” in their copyright protected private corporate policies. Their policies (“laws”) only apply to corporate entities, which they created and which confirms their 100% corporate status. Further confirmation, is not only found in their own definition of “corporation”, but also in court transcript, the Denis Dodds case excerpted in the Complaint to the Chief Judge. All of these conditions constitute many forms of gross human rights violations. Especially since they also control what is “not taught” in the schools, so by their ignorance the people become financially enslaved.
lV. Facts of the complaint
Since January 7th, 2005, John Krist, the natural man, has been caused to answer to a charge of “trafficking” marijuana. He was not “trafficking” anything, but rather, was picking up medical marijuana from a licensed grow operation and for an A.I.D.S. patient, licensed to use medical marijuana. This fact confirmed for the Court by the Affidavit of that A.I.D.S. patient. See the Complaint to the Chief Judge for details of the violations.
The charges are against the “artificial person”, “John KRIST”, not John Krist the man, yet he must answer. By their own statutory definitions, these charges are false. The Interpretation section of the “Criminal Code of Canada” confirms it only applies to “Her Majesty and an organization” and only in the Northwest Territory, the Yukon Territories, and Nunavat, as those geographic areas are all that are included in the meaning given for the term “province” (lower-case “p”) in all Federal and Provincial “law” (see binder).
The actual provinces (geographic areas) such as “British Columbia”, are expressly excluded from “their laws” and most likely because “legally”, the real provinces are independent nations and are not a “part of Canada”. All of this will come clear upon your reading of the aforementioned “binder” where you will see the Walter Kuhl documents and the e-mail exchange I had with the Legislative Services Branch of Justice Canada regarding legal definitions of “Canada”. When reading the binder, and in relation to their usage of the word “includes”, please keep in mind the Legal Maxim: “The inclusion of one, is the exclusion of another.”
We all have the right to a lawful government capable of creating “public laws”, and not to be “ruled” by a corporation enforcing copyright protected private “corporate policies” with the purpose of financially enslaving the general population. As result of these conditions, many individuals have resorted to committing some form of property crime, or suicide. I personally know of at least six who have resorted to the latter. There are no “laws” by which anything lawful could be “established”, such as a “fair and public hearing by a competent, impartial and independent tribunal”. Violation of Article 14 (1).
As an individual answering to an alleged “criminal charge”, John Krist advised the court he was exercising his human right to have his defense presented by a “legal assistant of his own choosing”. The corporately created Provincial Court denied him that “minimum guarantee” as assured him by the I.C.C.P.R. Violation of Article 14 (3) (d).
When the Judge denied him that human right, the Sheriffs then subjected me to extreme intimidation tactics and forced me out of the courtroom. Violation of Article 26 and Declarations on Human Rights Defenders.
Further, and presumably because he could not honestly state that he had first hand knowledge of receiving the name “John Krist”, he was arbitrarily arrested and held in custody, without ever being informed “of the reasons for his arrest” and no further charges being laid. It appears that the court simply decided he needed to be punished for not being obedient and admitting that the hearsay name “John Krist”, was his own. In the prisoner’s box he was forced to say he was “John Krist”, in order to be released from custody, and he then was. Violation of Article 9 (1) & (2).
He reports that, while in custody the Sheriffs treated him inhumanely and showed no respect to him for the “inherent dignity of the human person”, as though he was already guilty of some despicable crime. They also forced him roughly up against the wall and said something to the effect “spread your legs or I’ll kick them out from under you”. Violation of Articles 10(1) and 14(2). (five)
Complaint Pursuant to the ICCPR - page five
In addition to your intervention in the instant matter, we are also seeking direction on how we can have all of these facts heard by an International Human Rights Tribunal, such as resulted from the case dubbed the “McLibel” case. You may recall that the European Human Rights Court found that the United Kingdom’s Justice System acted in violation of the human right to freedom of expression/freedom of speech, by ruling in favor of the Multi-National McDonald’s Restaurant chain. The situation established by the facts included herein, is much, much bigger than the denial of rights to “freedom of expression”.
Further, and as you may not be aware, most countries of the world are being “ruled” by corporations acting as “governments”. We believe that this is the “Great Deception” referred to in scriptures. Fortunately, lies and secrets do share the same destiny, to one day be exposed. I am only aware of three countries operated under lawfully constituted governments. The evidence shows these conditions as responsible for the sufferings of the majority of the population of the planet, including the creation of the profit making business of “war”.
Therefore, we look to all of you as fellow human beings seeking peaceful co-existence with all creation, to give special attention to the information provided with this Complaint, even if not in your “job description”, to assist in ending the various forms of slavery of which most inhabitants of the planet are victims. We cannot respond based upon fears for ourselves or our jobs or the initial turmoil that may result from the necessary corrections. We were not put here to the purpose of serving the greed and obsession for total control fostered by big corporations, including “governments”. We all have the right to a lawful system of social order and not to be continuously subjected to the fear and intimidation tactics of Agents of these corporate governments de facto. I fear for all the children and their children, what will the future have in store for them, if we do not act now?
If this sovereign nation (British Columbia) had a lawful government, it would be creating interest-free-currency for the people based on the wealth of the nation. There would be no need for taxation and instead, the people would receive dividends from the marketing of our natural resources, as in Alaska. Stress is a killer, and financial stress is the most dominant form of stress to which the majority is subject every day of their existence. No one should be forced to slave for corporate governments de facto just to be allowed minimum levels of enjoyment of the gift of life given them.
We have allowed this world to go crazy, and if we do not act immediately and cause major changes to the benefit of all this planets inhabitants, we will all be sharing a hand-basket in Hell.
Therefore, I am begging you, please “go the extra mile” for us all, our world is badly broken, we must fix it.
Kindly forward the evidence provided herein to appropriate parties and urge them to act as well.
With my most sincere appreciation for all you will do,
David Butterfield
V. Supporting Documentation included
1. Notice of Appointment of Plenipotentiary (included in Complaint to Chief Judge)
2. Binder (easy-copy version, sorry no alphabetical tabs inserted)
3. Letter of Challenge of Jurisdiction and Lawful Authority and Affidavit
4. Complaint to Chief Judge of the Provincial Court system (with enclosures not directly available
to you)
5. Complaint Process established for the Provincial Court system (from their website)
e-mail::
conspiracyfactist@yahoo.ca phone:: 604 - 588-9040
Linear Mode
