The Rule of Law

Eight hundred years later and Magna Carta 1215 is still looked upon as the cornerstone for which our liberties are derived from today. It was established as the Rule of Law with which Great Britain, the United States of America, Canada and all other Common Law countries based their constitutions on in regards to: rights and justice. By the end of the 13th century Magna Carta was recognized as a document that was the “highest law” of the land and no executive mandate or legislative act could infringe on this law.

The Rule of Law…

Our constitutions represent the law of the land today, but are the governing bodies obeying its supreme command?

Unalienable rights were established and the right to “due process” of the law is recognized as supreme. Meaning, that natural laws were recognized and any law that came into conflict with natural law is — not was — null and void. The government and courts have and must, still today, follow this law. It is not for them to remove or infringe on our liberties as our liberties are derived from this — the Common Law — that has stood the test of time for 8 centuries.

I brought case law that recognized our supreme law into the courts here in Ontario, CA. The judges I had faced ignored such established law — therefore, committing treason against the supreme law of the land that is our heritage. It was as if they thought I was making this stuff up, but no, it exist in case law and also with long established Common Law Maxims (principles).

In my opinion, this information should be part of every day learning. How can we protect and preserve our freedoms if we don’t know the roots of those freedoms and the basic process of protecting them (filing documents and the process of addressing matters in court)?

These judges who ignore this documentation with their own points of view are creating new case law that is poisoning our justice system — essentially leading us away from the foundation of where our liberties reside. Whether they are doing so because of their own incompetence or if they are doing so intentionally, does not change the fact that this falls along the lines of treason. The most alarming aspect of this is that it is happening on a grand scale as more and more people are waking up to the realization that tyranny is on the horizon (if it isn’t here already) and making a stand in our courts (among other places).

Here in Canada, you would think that every individual who has studied the legal profession would automatically put iconic documents such as the Charter and Bill of Rights (thay are de facto – see The Myth is Canada) well ahead of any other learning materials as they represent Canada’s place in the free world. But that just doesn’t seem to be the case. The key line in those documents rest in the preambles where it states something along the lines (they slightly differ) of, “…the nation of Canada “is” founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…”

RULE OF LAW. Rules of law are general maxims, formed by the courts, who having observed what is common to many particular cases, announce this conformity by a maxim, which is called a rule; because in doubtful and unforeseen cases, it is a rule for their decision; it embraces particular cases within general principles. ~ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised 6th Edition 1856.

Once you realize that Common Law Maxims represent established indisputable truths in law and tie that into the fact that we have long recognized that we have been “endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights” — hence God being recognized as supreme and those rights being natural to every man’s existence — then no judge can pass a decision contrary to this established concept of law… because it is supreme and no person or thing has the authority to state otherwise as the Rule of Law dictates his decision for him.

Maxim (Rule of Law): “Liberty is more favored than all things.” (Libertas omnibus rebus favorabilior est).

God’s Law is the rule of right.

This is a Rule of Law and “There is no disputing about rules of law” (Non est certandum de regulis juris).

So, we have Rules of Law that protect these God-given unalienable rights (a.k.a. Common Law Rights or Natural Rights). Is there case law that supports this claim? Yes. Should the courts today be guided by that case law? Absolutely! They (courts) are neutral and the law commands them — already established case law commands them along with the long established Common Law principles that our Common Law nations are founded upon.

In one of my arguments pertaining to the natural right to use the roads, I point out some case law that has been established over the last 100 years. One relates to when the Highway Traffic Act first came into effect (or began to be enforced). It’s actually an interesting read as it is a piece of documented history from 1913 where an individual was traveling down a city road under construction and hit a pipe alongside the road.

The key part that I bring up in my argument was the matter addressing how the Act forced this individual to register his private property with the government, plate it and that he had to pay for this action. In Greig v. City of Merritt, [1913] D.L.R. 852 (B.C.Co.Ct.), these are the reasons why the judge justified the infringement of the Common Law right to use the roads freely:

“The object of such provisions is clearly for the benefit of the public. In the event of the law being violated the offender can be readily identified by the number on his car and brought to justice. The car whilst not an outlaw on the highway is yet without a doubt a very dangerous machine unless under very careful control.”

I have to agree with the above reasons, but then he goes on to say the following:

“The statue, containing as it does some drastic provisions affecting one’s common law rights and especially so in the matter of the burden of proof, is clearly framed with an eye to the protection of the public, and the question of revenue is I think merely incidental in the Act.”

Look at the bold (I added) wording here: he is recognizing that Common Law rights are being infringed upon here — and he uses the word “drastic” when implying that they are. OK, so now you have to prove you own something you are in possession of? Remember what appears to be an old saying now, “possession is nine tenths of the law”?

And then there is the mention of revenue, implying that the state cannot create an avenue of revenue from a natural right. Sure, there is a one time fee here and the idea was that the Act was not intended to be a revenue generator. That would have been an infringement on a natural right and seen as unlawful in a just court. Therefore, that law would be of no force and effect.

The Act has probably been amended a hundred times since then. Now, let’s have a look at how far removed we are from this basic Common Law Right in comparison to what this judge has stated…

• I’m not sure when, but an annual licensing fee came into play which probably started out as a couple of dollars. It’s now at $70 a year here in Ontario and probably higher in parts of Canada and the USA. Also add on the driver’s licensing renewal fees.
• There was a time when police were not allowed to run your plates as it was an invasion of privacy (privacy is a huge issue today with police advocating for warrantless access requests for private information on its citizens). Now they have brought in scanning devices that will scan numerous plates instantly from a certain distance.
• They can stop and detain you for no lawful reason.
• They can issue hefty fines (extortion) for practically no good reason (under the guise of your safety and security no doubt).
• I was ordered not to use my vehicle (or anyone else’s) for 72 hours after consuming 2 pints of beer, then I had to pay $180 for permission to use a motor vehicle on the road again. They also took/towed my private property which cost me another $200 to get back.
• This is the one that really bothers me (not that any of the above don’t)… That they can deny you your right to use the road in your private property for reasons completely unrelated to you using the road, such as, for not paying a fine for not having a dog license.

The last point is going way overboard when it comes to infringing on your God-given natural rights that have been declared in historic documents as well as being long established in our courts over many centuries. These documents represent the Rule of Law for our Civil Servants to follow as it is the foundation of our freedoms.

So, how did we get so far off track?

Ever heard of the phrase, “Inch by inch, it’s a cinch”? They have been doing it gradually over time and doing so with the help of the mainstream media. With the serious lack of integrity the mainstream media has, they have been keeping us in the dark about so many important issues.

I believe, deep down inside, we all feel there is something very wrong about what is transpiring in regards to the statutory laws governments are hammering us with and it all gets lost with the array of alarming current events like the threat of terrorism. Personally, I think all of this is part of a much bigger plan and the only hope for a positive future is for The People to wake up to the roots of their freedoms — before they are gone for good.

I’m doing something about it and so should you as our basic liberties are on the line here. If you feel you can’t do anything about it, then help support people like me who are acting on your behalf.

Can you imagine the world we could be living in if government and Civil Servants actually followed the rule of law? The courts would not be flooding with so many meaningless cases where time and resources are being wasted and taxpayers would see huge savings. Or imagine, how things would be if The People woke up to their heritage and armed themselves to the teeth as the Declaration of Independence commands us to do and demand that the government follow the rule of law or perish.

Is our destiny in the hands of We The People or is it in the hands of the Elite few who control government for their best interests — not ours? Is the Rule of Law actually still in existence today?

“…law can serve as the motivating force behind revolutionary activity. In writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained that it had become necessary for the colonies to dissolve their formal ties with Great Britain because the king of England had abused his autocratic power by denying Americans their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, Jefferson said, are guaranteed by an unwritten Natural Law. The American Revolution, then, was fought to restore the Rule of Law in the United States, which was not fully accomplished until the power of government was subordinated to the will of the people in the state and federal constitutions.” ~ Online at thefreedictionary when looking up the word “revolution“.

Until next time, this is the commoner known as Shawn, with the family name Cassista, educating everyone about their natural rights — long established in the fight for “Truth, Freedom and Justice” — with which Liberty will reign!