The 2012 ruling by Alberta's Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke sent shock waves through the media, freedom movement and around the world when it was first released.  But if we know what we are looking for in his tirade rant, we will find that Justice J.D. Rooke slipped up and gave away deep, meaningful secrets in the process.   

Court of Kings Bench circa 1460

I don't normally share news articles as the main stream media is bias in an attempt to help the elite maintain control over the people through fear and intimidation. But I want to share these two articles written about the ruling, one from the Edmonton Sun and other from The National Post to demonstrate how the propaganda is being used to shut down the idea of freedom and peace.  

I've gone through the 188 page ruling and picked out some highlights that support the position that I take in my life and how we can use rulings like this to teach people the truth of our relationships with the state.

State of mind of Justice Rooke

What most people don't realize is that judges (and others) view people as vulnerable and needing protecting.  They see people as children and as such take up the duty to parent the children using disciplinary actions to correct bad behaviour.  However, Justice Rooke also feels contempt for people and often this feeling seeps into his rulings.  Here is a quote from a separate article written in 2007 that shows what I speak of.   

‘Rooke, who last week convicted Priolo, 30, of sexually assaulting his then-18-year-old victim, noted he took advantage of a “stupid” and “naive” young woman.  “It’s the stupid people who need protection,” he said, in finding a serious sentence was warranted. “You can’t come across a person who’s vulnerable and lead them, literally, off into the woods and sexually assault them.’ 

I think it is unprofessional for him to speak of people in this way and especially of people who survive sexual assault.  But this points to the position and views that judges hold over citizens that show up before them in their court room.  When it comes to the Meads case, Justice Rooke took advantage of the opportunity to rebuke a huge segment of the freedom movement that is working hard to deconstruct how the state works so that we can all be free.  When deconstructing a black box, all we can do is poke it to see what the response is going to be.  Nobody inside the box is going to willingly share the secrets, otherwise their game would be finished long ago.  So to call the concepts 'stupid' is again, unprofessional.  

 [75] … ‘When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid.’  (OPCA stands for Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument).  

[77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented.  

Legal attempt to separate our body from spirit

When people rant like this, they inadvertently give away secrets and show their true hands.  I like it when they rant because of their arrogance and contempt.  One of his biggest mistakes was when he shared the following in his ruling:

[30] After informing Mr. Meads about the Court’s contempt authority, I reassured him that I want to assist him and Ms. Meads to move forward, separate their affairs, and allow each to live on their own. There were still issues to explore, but that I would assist. Mr. Meads responded in this manner:      

Mr. Meads: A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around. The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you’re treating the person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul. You are enticing me into slavery ...      

The Court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I’m just going to deal with your person.  

Please read my book 'Graduating Life with Honours', particularly Chapter Six, if you really want to learn more about the significance of that one line.  In short, they can only claim jurisdiction to the artificial person or the natural person.  The artificial person is a corporation, the natural person is our body WITHOUT a mind, feelings or spirit.  Bound together they form a legal entity called a 'corporation sole' and that is what they have jurisdiction over.  It is a small fraction of who we are and does not include all the rest, especially the true essence of who we are:  SPIRIT!!!  However, we are not a legal entity or corporation and if we confronted this issue in court, it would shut them down immediately.  Justice Rooke admitted that he does not have jurisdiction over the spirit or anything in the spiritual realm.  Why not stand with our true power and authority!

I also suspect that is why in my own court case, which I described in a previous post, that the court dismissed the charges due to a lack of evidence.  They don't want cases like mine being heard because then it would set a precedent and that is the last thing they want.  They do not want the truth of their jurisdiction being entered onto the public record.  Probably why the judge in my case specifically state that 'this is not a precedent setting case'.  I know of others who have done the same, like my friend down in California with his wife and new born baby.  He stood on the principle of being a spiritual being and he was out of jail in 5 days with all criminal charges dropped.  There is no way they could try the case as it too would set a precedent as they would lose!  That is why you will not find the truth when digging through court cases.  They will hide this to the best of their abilities.  I know of many people who walk free and the state leaves them alone because of this very issue!

Rooke's statement exactly supports my research in that area.  Oxford Defines person as ‘III. The living body of a human being; either (a) the actual body, as distinct from clothing, etc., or from the mind or soul.’  They have attempted to split us up into pieces and they act upon one of the pieces and have no regard for the other pieces (mind or soul).  The above statement from the court proves this point.  

The Hidden Hand

[69] In Canada, this category of litigation traces into the late 1990’s, representing the spread of concepts that emerged much earlier in the United States. Our Court’s experience has been that persons involved in the OPCA community often hold highly conspiratorial perspectives, but there is no consistency in who is the alleged hidden hand. Another uniform OPCA characteristic appears to be a belief that ordinary persons have been unfairly cheated, or deceived as to their rights. This belief that the common man has been abused and cheated by a hidden hand seems to form the basis for OPCA community members perceived right to break ‘the system’ and retaliate against ‘their oppressors’.  

I am not an advocate of breaking the system as that requires violence and I am peaceful and I declared peace.  However, it is clear to me that this judge does not want to consider the criminal cabal that is in control of the world.  There is so much evidence out there; it is difficult to not consider it when addressing this ‘hidden hand’ that he refers to.  The fact that he used the term ‘hidden hand’ is telling that he is aware of them as this is a specific term that references these individuals that control the world but from the shadows.  A term I only found out about a few years ago myself.  Why do people dismiss conspiracy so easily?  All a conspiracy is, by legal definition:   

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act.  

The conspiracy can be proved, but the courts are complicit in the conspiracy, so it is within their best interests to withhold the truth of their participation and dismiss it at every opportunity.  The court is not your friend.  It is not a place to find 'justice' but rather is a place to find revenge and to go to war against your neighbour.  I refuse to go to court as I have absolutely no 'business' being there!

He shares the only way to get out

[318] Of course, it is indeed possible to cease to be governed by Canadian law. One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction.  

This one statement by Rooke is, in my opinion, the key to the whole ruling that most people miss.  Either you are in and subject to their jurisdiction or you are out.  I will write another post to help define what 'CANADA' really is.  Hint:  it is not land!  But they have created a very black and white scenario as a result.  No shades of gray.  No sitting on the fence.  It is time to choose which side you are on.  Time to choose.  Remember though, when you choose to be out, that means you have no business being in their system, using their system, getting any benefits or privileges, etc. from their system.   The commercial remedies that people work on is a part of their system.  You cannot be free of the system yet make demands of it or use it to protect yourself.  No more filing UCC statements etc.  You are blurring the lines and you will be classified as an OPCA litigant and have this ruling smack you over the head to teach you a lesson.  If you are out, then the courts, commercial remedies, UCC, statutes, regulations, birth certificates, secret accounts, etc are all out of bounds.  The courts are setting very specific and firm boundaries.  Breach those boundaries, you go to jail.

This matches up with the feudal research I did where the only way out is to declare with the feudal lords court that we will no longer provide service and revoke our citizenship.  At that point the court will dissolve all the tenures and set their feudal serf free.  When that has happened, you are a 'free man'.  Please do NOT confuse that with a 'freeman' as this is a feudal tenure within their system with specific rights and duties attached to it.  You are not 'free' if you claim to be a 'freeman'.  Again, either you are in or you are out!

Courts claim of ultimate authority and declaration of war!

[280] OPCA litigants have also seized on the preamble to The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c .11, which reads:  Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law ... [Emphasis added.]  

[281] This passage has been the subject of occasional judicial commentary, most simply because various litigants have argued that the preamble makes any of Canada’s laws subject to the “supremacy of God”. This proposition is expertly dismantled and dismissed by Justice Muldoon in O’Sullivan v. Canada (No. 2) (1991), 45 F.T.R. 284, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 124 (F.C.T.D.), where he concludes:  
  
The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make Canada a theocracy because of the enormous variety of beliefs of how God (apparently the very same deity for Jews, Christians and Muslims) wants people to behave generally and to worship in particular. The preamble's recognition of the supremacy of God, then, does not prevent Canada from being a secular state.   

What the courts have done here is removed any link between the courts and any higher level spiritual standards that we are to govern ourselves by.  As such, they have detached themselves from those standards and now set the standard for behaviour and governance.  That standard has slowly deteriorated over hundreds of years.  In the end, their authority is now the supreme authority over their feudal serfs.  But it is not, nor will it ever be the highest standard, authority or power.       

Rooke is coming from a position of power, force, coercion and contempt as a result of war.  He started his entire ruling with the following quote:

Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.    
  ...  
The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.  
  ...  
And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184   

In short, the court claims the power of force, violence, coercion and even fraud in order to rule.  The courts are at war and they admit it openly.  So my question is this:  Can he be at war against people who have declared peace?  

The answer is 'no' and as such proves why they refuse to claim any jurisdiction over people who are spiritual beings and at peace with themselves and others.  However, if one participates with the system, those individuals are at war as the system is a military occupational force.  To even participate with them means that you have declared war and are at war against your fellow brother and sister.  

Claim of feudal ancient inherent jurisdiction

Justice Rooke also believes his authority is inherited from a long line of ‘superior courts of inherent jurisdiction'.  To get a firm grasp of what he writes here requires a comprehension of how feudalism works and how the modern form of feudalism is alive and well today.     

 [353] The authority of this Court, like other superior courts of inherent jurisdiction, does not flow from legislation, as does, for example, the Provincial Court of Alberta. Rather, this Court has inherited that jurisdiction as a successor to the English Royal Courts. Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia; Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 explains this Court’s genealogy:  
  ... The provincial superior courts have always occupied a position of prime importance in the constitutional pattern of this country. They are the descendants of the Royal Courts of Justice as courts of general jurisdiction. ...  
  
[354] That heritage reaches to the very foundation of an independent judiciary: ...    
  “Superior Court” is to be construed historically, and that ... it connotes a court having an inherent jurisdiction, in England, to administer justice according to the law, as and being a part of, or descended from, and as exercising part of the power of, the Aula Regia, established by William the First, which had universal jurisdiction in all matters of right and wrong throughout the kingdom, and over which, in its early days, the King presided in person. (Daniel Greenberg, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary Words & Phrases, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)).  
  
[355] That history and its associated authority is described in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at para. 26, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 this manner:  
  ... The notion of inherent jurisdiction has developed from the role of provincial superior courts in Canada's legal system. The unique historical feature of provincial superior courts, as opposed to the Federal Court, is that they have traditionally exercised general jurisdiction over all matters of a civil or criminal nature. This general jurisdictional function in the Canadian justice system precedes Confederation, and was expressly continued by s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867, "as if the Union had not been made". ... [Emphasis added.]  
  
[356] The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and similar Courts are now Canadian courts, but these superior courts of inherent jurisdiction are the successors to earlier English colonial courts that predate Confederation: Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1 at 19-20. In Alberta, that ‘inheritance’ was expressly indicated in the legislation that created this province: The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3, s. 16(1). The general authority that this court inherited is restated in the Supreme Court Act of Alberta, S.A. 1907, c. 3, s. 9:  
  ... the jurisdiction which on July 15, 1870, was vested in, or capable of being exercised in England by (1.) the High Court of Chancery, as a Common Law Court, as well as a Court of Equity, including the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls as a judge or Master of the Court of Chancery, and any jurisdiction exercised by him in relation to the Court of Chancery as a common law Court; (2.) The Court of Queen's Bench; (3.) The Court of Common Pleas at Westminster; (4.) The Court of Exchequer as a Court of Revenue as well as a Common Law Court; (5.) The Court of Probate; (6.) The Court created by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, and of Gaol Delivery, or of any of such Commissions.  

Again, I encourage people to read my book 'Graduating Life with Honours' Chapter Four where I explain the feudal system in great detail.  What he just said is that his court is a feudal court which started with William the Conqueror in 1066 and the creation of the Domesday book, upon which the courts are responsible for maintaining the records of the demesne.  It is astounding to me that the constitution did not create these courts but rather granted them continued jurisdiction instead.  This is further proof that the Constitution Act 1982 is not a real constitution and that we do indeed live in a feudal system and that there is but one way to get out of that system.  Refuse to provide service and be independent.  That means living off the grid ... ALL GRIDS!  The system being the biggest, most complex and insidious grid ever devised.   

It also appears to me that he is also aware of some history and relationships that are not available to the general public.  There is a lot of secrets in the judiciary and the fact that new judges go to school in Ottawa when they are appointed and that the content of their education is secret fits right into the mystery we call the judiciary.  As such, this lack of openness breads suspicion and speculation.  If they want credibility then it is time to come into the light and expose the full truth.     

My Conclusion   

In short, this court ruling supports the research that I did in regards to how we are all living in a world wide feudal system.  You have no choice but to comply or get out – based on the opinions of this judge.  Because of that system, much of what the judge wrote is exactly correct.  You are a slave, they make the rules and you have no choice but to follow them – if you are still in their system!     

I would surmise that we do have a choice and we always had a choice.  I will admit that this ruling tried to intimidate with fear and doubt in the hopes that people give up and comply with the jurisdiction of the courts.  I was curious as to why my work was not mentioned in this case as I am also very visible and vocal in my teachings.  I had to conclude that either I am on the right track or there was not enough case studies to make any conclusions in his ruling.  I would suggest that there are numerous ways of removing ourselves from the slavery we find ourselves caught in and proved by this ruling. My concern with this recent ruling is that most people will either be scared shitless of confronting the system or resort to violence to revolt against it.  I don’t believe for a second that violence is necessary to find freedom.  Even though Rooke claims that people are now ‘terrorists’ ([181] … The FBI classifies Sovereign Men as a domestic terrorist movement), I have never advocated violence or terror in my efforts to find freedom.  It is my view that the state is, in fact, in the business of inducing terror as they are at war and engaged in combat.  Terrorism is but one aspect of war that we have yet to confront the state on.     

If we really want peace and freedom, then we must declare peace, be peaceful, take 100% responsibility and accountability for our lives and return to the land upon which we came from so that we can provide for all our needs.  There is a global war going on and most people unknowingly participate in it all.  If we hold any documents from the state or accept any benefits or privileges from the state, then we are participants in that war and are no longer protected from the conflict.