Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Under Criminal Attack

Once upon a time there lived a king who bequeathed to his subjects the right to have and to hold portions of his kingdom free of any and all encumbrances. The King accomplished this action through what is commonly known, in common law, as Land Grants (Letters Patent).
          The Crown Land Grants or Letters Patent are contracts. If you look at it, what you will realize is that the Patent issued by the sovereign cannot be refuted due to prerogative. If you know law then the documents (patents) cannot be contested by any court, for to do so would be an act against the crown.
Looking at the chart it is a no brainer.  You have a patent from the sovereign giving you privileges with reservations and conditions, the term is forever.   It is the trump card that the courts are steering around.  In the Bob Mackie case the judge dismissed his plea not saying the patent was valid or not, because it was, but she refused to consider it, on the grounds that Bob Mackie did not do his due diligence.  If she ruled on the patent then she would be acting against the crown and the sovereign.

It is because no one knows or remembers the structure of government that the queen and the letters patent are ignored.  We have right, but we are encumbered by ignorance.

They are still a contract and they are still patents and they, it would seem, are still private property rights as they involve the honor of the Crown. Without the knowledge of these documents people, through the generations, have been denied their rights and the right to use whatever means possible to defend their ownership. It had become so engrained in people that they actually had property and land rights, that they had become complacent and allowed themselves to be governed by legislation that did not pertain to them. They owned their land, they owned their property and unless there was a successful application to the courts, in regards to regulating the right, title or interest of the land and property, no second or third party had option of dictating to the owner of the property, including the land use conditions, unless specifically expressed in the Letters Patent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is fully aware of Land Use Conditions and as expressed from their own policy: 4.2.2 Land Use Condition

“This is a fundamental principle, going back at least to Magna Carta,” ,  Lord Parmoor said: “Since Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Wells v. Newfoundland, Judge J. Major: “In a nation governed by the rule of law, we assume that the government will honour its obligations unless it explicitly exercises its power not to. In the absence of a clear express intent to abrogate rights and obligations—rights of the highest importance to the individual—those rights remain in force. To argue the opposite is to say that the government is bound only by its whim, not its word. In Canada this is unacceptable, and does not accord with the nation’s understanding of the relationship between the state and its citizens.” “Writing for the Court, Major J. concluded that, while Wells’ position could be terminated by statute, absent express statutory provisions to the contrary, contract law and contract remedies governed the employment relationship. Consequently, as the Crown was in breach of its contract with Wells, he was entitled to compensation by way of damages.” The government; all governments, are legally bound by contract, as expressed under Common Law, and the government on all levels, is not above the law. What must be remembered is that the Legislators also agreed to the terms of these contracts and as it was the Crown and the Legislators that created these contracts they are bound not to change the terms. The definition of the Crown Land Patent Grants, as expressed by the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act entitles the grantee/patentee rights and authority over their possessions. Quote: “The definition extended the previous definition of "grant" under the Public Lands Grants Act. The previous definition limited Crown grants to those conveying a fee simple or equivalent estate in real property.” Letters patent have been defined as "writing of the sovereign, sealed with the Great Seal, whereby a person or company is entitled to do acts or enjoy privileges which could not be done or enjoyed without such authority."

I hope this clears up any ambiguity as to what the Crown Land Patent Grants are and how legislation, it would seem, does not apply to privately owned land or property. It is up to the people to stand up for their rights, exercise their rights and to instruct their elected officials as to what they will and will not accept. It is also the duty of each individual to respect the rights that the Crown Grants/Letters Patent affords and to accept their own individual responsibility that comes with those rights.


So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it;  no, not even for the general good of the whole community.  If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men to do this without consent of the owner of the land…Besides the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights…”
Blackstone Commentaries, 2:138-9

Hello Municipal Officials
            With all due respect, I am not trying to create problems.  If anything I am trying to solve problems, but this constant, relentless attack on people, by municipal and other staff, has got to stop.  I received a notice from a Municipal planning department, in regards to the amendment to the Official Plan.  It would seem, they don’t seem to understand that if the Council accept the designation of private property Council, are technically committing fraud, breach of trust, etc., wouldn’t you agree?
            Now I have received a report, in regards to the Conservation Authorities, dictating a new larger plan.  There are options for the Municipalities.  As Mayor and Council, when an entity, which is sub-servient to Council, violates the rights of your residents, Council has the option of dissolving the C.A., and Council is obligated to do this under oath of office.  I am attaching our Conservation Authority report, so that you have ample information.
            With all due respect, when municipal councils don’t respect the people’s rights, they are effectively removing their own rights.  In conjunction with that respect, the council as an elected board of directors of a corporation, have the onus to uphold superior law, that being the Constitution, the Letters Patent, the Municipal Act, and even the Planning Act.  There is nothing in any of these Acts which grant Council, Staff or the C.A.s/NEC, authority over private property.  That is all a fallacy, which needs to stop.
When members of council swear the oath of office, they are avowing an allegiance to Queen Elizabeth.  In swearing that allegiance, council is swearing to uphold the Constitution in all events.  The Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction is limited to what belongs to it and not private property, as again it is merely a corporation.  The Municipality’s jurisdiction also belongs to what is public property, not private and the C.A.s cannot have more authority that the entity which created them, being the Municipalities.  As for the Municipalities, the authority to expropriate is in section 6 and only after property is acquired, by expropriation, purchase or lease, is there any authority for municipal councils to do anything with that property.  That is specifically stated in the Municipal Act.  Sections 10 and 11, subsection 2 (By-laws), part 4 states: 

(2)  A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters:
4. Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.
 The above is from section 10, whereas section 11 is the same in regards to Upper Tier corporations.  Municipal public assets are defined as:
 “municipal property asset” means an asset of the municipality that is land, equipment or other goods. O. Reg. 599/06, s. 14 (2).
 And under section 1 of the Municipal Act, there is also the definition of “economic development services”:
“economic development services” means, in respect of a municipality, the promotion of the municipality by the municipality for any purpose by the collection and dissemination of information and the acquisition, development and disposal of sites by the municipality for industrial, commercial and institutional uses; (“services de développement économique”)
 To violate the Constitution, the Letters Patent, and/or the Municipal Act, Council is placing council in a position of breach of trust by a public officer, wouldn’t you agree?  Does the County Council or the Council of a municipality want to do this?  Under section 14 of the Municipal Act it states;
Conflict between by-law and statutes, etc.
14.  (1)  A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.
(2)  Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), there is a conflict between a by-law of a municipality and an Act, regulation or instrument described in that subsection if the by-law frustrates the purpose of the Act, regulation or instrument. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 10.
 And under section 15 the authority of the Council is extremely limited:


Specific powers, by-laws under general powers
15.  (1)  If a municipality has power to pass a by-law under section 9, 10 or 11 and also under a specific provision of this or any other Act, the power conferred by section 9, 10 or 11 is subject to any procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals and appeals, that apply to the power and any limits on the power contained in the specific provision. 2001, c. 25, s. 15 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
(1.1)  For the purpose of subsection (1) and, unless the context otherwise requires, the fact that a specific provision is silent on whether or not a municipality has a particular power shall not be interpreted as a limit on the power contained in the specific provision. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 11 (2).
Application to new and existing provisions
(2)  Subsection (1) applies whether the specific provision was enacted before or after,
(a) the day this section comes into force; or
(b) the day a by-law passed under section 9, 10 or 11 comes into force. 2001, c. 25, s. 15 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 11 (3).
No retroactive effect
(3)  Nothing in this section invalidates a by-law which was passed in accordance with the procedural requirements in force at the time the by-law was passed. 2001, c. 25, s. 15 (3).
(4)  Subsection (1) applies to limit the powers of a municipality despite the inclusion of the words “without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11” or any similar form of words in the specific provision. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 11 (4).

Memo to Council

Sir/Madam, there are other municipalities looking to cease and desist from the new PPS, but unless you are all going to stand together, you will be undermined by Municipal Affairs, and the province.  It is unfortunate that the province is not working in the best interests of the people and placing municipal councils in this position.  Only the municipally elected councils can do something about this, that is why I am emailing.  When things do start to go bad, for the councils, municipal affairs will state that you are to do due diligence.  This is why I am contacting you.  The Council of your municipality seems to want to be above these violations and to protect their residents, but if Council doesn’t move forward with correcting this situation, by taking a lead, these situations will only worsen.  My question to Council and to staff is:
Are you all prepared to remove your own constitutional rights, lose your children’s rights, lose your own personal wealth?  When you pass by-laws, or when the province dictates to municipal councils, they are removing democracy and the people’s rights.  These are things every Councillor and Staff member should take into consideration, when they decide to pass by-laws.
 This same email will be going out to other municipal councillors, but I want you to understand this is not to work against you, this is to assist in decision making.  Information is king.  You have the information, and it’s what you decide to do with it, that is up to you.

Presentation to the Niagara Peninsula Conversation Authority
David Honey, president of the Niagara Landowners Association
And director for the Ontario Landowners Association

The Ontario Landowners Organization is growing very quickly - the reason is because more and more people feel that they need protection against their own government agencies — they need protection against the people whom they voted into office to represent them

Since 1990: -the provincial government has passed through the legislature 250,000 pieces of legislation -out of those 250,000 pieces of legislation, they have created 6,000 new laws  and have hired 200,000 new civil servants to enforce those laws -any one of those 6,000 new laws could put a taxpayer into jail- this has to change - the public votes politicians into office. WE hire YOU to manage our tax monies and represent our interests.

Here is an example of the problems we’re facing now, because of this overabundance of legislation and bylaws:

**our Conservation Authority  - if you take the time to read their own act - they do NOT have the right to step onto private property

Yet, in 2002 — the Ministry of Natural Resources took aerial surveys of what they called wetlands. In 2006 — the MNR redid the study and increased the size 10-fold and classified thousands of private properties as wetlands.

The policies that the MNR has since created, have jeopardized a multitude of innocent people who have now been charged by the Conservation Authority with endangerment of wetlands, even though these people have done nothing to endanger anything.

Let’s take an example. The Dave White case. Dave White and his 85-year-old mother versus Chippawa Conservation Authority. The Chippawa Conservation authority drained CONSERVATION land onto Dave White’s property.
Dave complained because they were flooding his land. So the conservation authority changed the designation of Dave’s land to wetland and charged him and his mother with farming a wetland. After 4 years in court, their entire life savings was sucked out of them in defending their innocence. Mr. Kine, the region’s lawyer, represented the conservation authority and asked the judge to have Dave White and his 85-year-old mother thrown in prison for 2 years and he also requested a $50,000 fine, to boot. But Dave had proven that the conservation authority had changed the mapping and the water course flow in the creeks — amongst other things — to suit their own defense. In the end, the judge saw through it and (chastised Niagara Region's Lawyer) Mr. Kine for using the court system as a weapon against common people.*

Yet it doesn’t just end there - because even when they lose, the conservation authorities refuse to accept that they were wrong. They appeal — using taxpayers dollars to continue to go after people that the judges said were innocent.

Did you know that the NPCA appeals more cases per year than the Niagara Regional Police does?

This is exactly what they’re doing to Mark Barnfield. The Conservation Authority took Mark to court, claiming his land—which is zoned industrial—was, in THEIR opinion wetland. Mark couldn’t afford a lawyer, so he had to represent himself. He WON and the Conservation Authority’s case was thrown out. Yet they didn’t back off. They’re still appealing, grinding him into the ground financially—and using taxpayer’s money—MARK’S money—to do it.

This is why the Ontario Landowners Association was formed—as a support network for people who are being hurt by intrusive government actions.
If our governments were doing their job properly, kindly and humanely, this organization would not be necessary.

What we’re asking you to do, is to restore the conservation authority back to the level of power and control that it was intended to have when it was first formed. It was never meant to intrude on private property. It was never meant to be used as a way of burning through millions of taxpayer’s dollars in order to hurt taxpayers themselves. This is a
government organization that needs to be put back in its place. It has hurt far too many citizens, and it is time for this to stop. YOU have the power to get this rolling—you shouldn’t shrug it off as somebody
else’s responsibility.

It’s gotten to the point where taxpayers—VOTERS—are being overwhelmed and hurt by too much legislation, too many laws, and too many bylaws. We need your help in correcting this situation. In THIS region, the Conservation Authority is a prime example of how an out-of-control government authority is hurting innocent people. I KNOW this is a big job, I KNOW you can’t fix overnight. But we are asking for your help in getting this government agency under control before they hurt any more innocent people. Thank you.
David Honey

The above presentation by Mr. Honey to the NPCA has been most enlightening!

What the Region and their lawyer did to the white family was nothing short of a criminal act!

Unfortunately Mr. Honey’s presentation is where this writer came into this most squalid and sordid picture of wonton misconduct made worse by the knowledge of what most Canadians generally expect from their government.  

*Even worse is the discovery that this bureaucratic, political and criminal activity is still going on.

Going forward, News Alert Niagara will be bringing you additional repulsive stories about innocent citizens who have suffered and are still suffering from lies, perjury, deception, false witness, trumped up charges, extortion, financial terrorism, and even death at the hands of government officials.

Dear Reader, we will also publish the 'names' of every government official who conducts themselves in bad faith and dishonor by supporting these disgusting and pure evil practices?

For more Information Click Here

The Mark Barnsfield Story

The Willie Wakulich Story

The Bob Mackie Story

The Dave White Story

The Jim Williams Story

The study of extortion