Face It Canada has No Sovereignty*
By Arthur Topman
I think about this often – the fact that the vast majority of Canadians can’t seem to figure out that their legal system is still grafted on to that of a foreign nation, i.e. Great Britain.
Given the fact that I’m facing the prospect of having to defend myself against spurious, malicious lies given to Canada’s RCMP “Hate Crime Unit” headed by Cst. Terry Wilson from the Surrey, B.C. precinct by two of the most chronic and overly zealous Zionist zealots who have ever slithered about upon Canadian soil (Harry Abrams and Richard Warman) – fabricated falsehoods that have morphed into criminal charges of a nature that could result in my having to spend two years in a federal penitentiary, I have good reason to contemplate the nature of how Britain is mixed up in this sordid conspiracy.
Now I can understand quite easily that any Canadian citizen who feels they are being unjustly treated should have the right to go to the authorities and state their concerns. This seems to me to be both a wise and fair right in any democratic nation and the only sensible alternative to prevent a citizen from having to take the law into their own hands for their protection and safety.
Even in the case of these two reprehensible, low-life, malevolent troglodytes I have no beef with their right to seek redress for their imagined persecution and hurt feelings. But what I do object to though, in the most fervent and strenuous manner possible, is the fact that I am being forced to argue my case and defend my rights in a supposed Canadian court of law where the pathetic plaintiff’s in this charade are able to have the queen of a foreign country act on their behalf and attempt to prosecute and find me guilty of supposed “hate crimes” against people of the Jewish faith as well as citizens of yet another foreign country, to wit, Israel.
Of course I am referring here to what in Canadian legal jurisprudence is referred to as the “Crown”. In Black’s Law Dictionary the term “Crown” is referred to as “the sovereign power in a monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes.” To be even more specific the “Crown” is the representative in England of the Rothschild banking cartel that owns and controls the independent state known as the “City of London” and whose public representative is Regina or what Canadians think of as the “Queen of England”.
Now in jolly ol’ England where they have had kings and queens for thousands of years one can easily imagine that their legal system would have the right to use that term and to employ it in any manner they so desire.
There is also a Latin term used in English law which is “Regina” and according to Black’s Law Dictionary it means, simply, “the queen”. Again, fine and dandy for all those who live in Great Britain and wish to be ruled under such conditions.
But I don’t live in England. I live in what is purported to be the sovereign country known as Canada. As I understand it I also live in an independent nation that has its own Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the obvious question that arises when I look at the legal documents which are before me is: why am I being prosecuted by “Regina” the queen of England and why is the “Crown” involved in my case?
Why, instead, is not the Canadian Legal System taking me task for alleged breaches of the Canadian Criminal Code instead of the queen of a foreign nation? In fact, how can it even be a legal possibility that “Regina” is against me and bringing forth an action against my person on behalf of two Canadian troglodytes when “Regina” is not even a Canadian citizen nor a bona fide representative of Canada?
Are Canadians really that stupid and dumbed down to the point where this glaring contradiction doesn’t register upon their critical thinking abilities?
If, in fact, we are indeed an independent and sovereign nation then why are we still using such legal terminology in our judicial processes? Why do we act as if we are independent and yet still keep using “the queen” and the “Crown” to represent what ought to be the highest and most legally authoritative designations within Canada’s legal institutions? It’s incorrect. It’s wrong; both legally and morally, and it begs the ultimate question as to the absolute legality and authority of all that purports to be Canada’s legitimate constitutional right to exist!
For Canadians to merely shrug (as Canadians are wont to do) and attempt to dismiss this crucial point as mere linguistics or sophistry on my part is not acceptable. The actual and true legitimacy of Canada as a sovereign and independent nation among other nations of the world depends upon our recognition within our legal system of the FACT of our sovereignty and that FACT must be reflected in the stated reality that Canada’s courts are being represented by Judges and lawyers who are beholding only to Canada and its Constitution.
As the justice system now exists it clearly points to a condition wherein Canada does not actually have a true and independent existence nor does it have a legitimate constitution, i.e., one that has been certified and sanctified by a vote of the whole population of the nation via a plebiscite. If it did we would not still be represented in our independent courts by “Regina” and the “Crown” but by Canada and its appointed representatives.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend or are Canadians just too stupid to see the contradiction?