The definition of “is”, is….
Who knew "Is" had three different and opposing meanings? Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page…
Many people have taught and applied the “claim of right” law principle over recent years which WAS clearly laid out in the Criminal Code (Canada). Well it is mostly GONE. That’s right GONE, but not completely.
AND Notaries in B.C. have been warned by their Association to not notarize any claim of right documents….
The Criminal Code has been changed AGAIN and the “claim of right” sections have been REPEALED as of 2012.
You can blame the “freeman” and guys like Dean Clifford for spreading the word. LOL
NOTE: Remember “they” cannot remove rights because “they” never gave you any rights BUT “they” are bound to RESPECT the rights you have (unwritten rights mostly). A private person’s rights remain intact regardless of what “they” write in their “codes”. “They” deceive because they cannot deny the truth, only hide it…..
You see, when everyday people go read the law and start using it, the guys writing the laws go “OH SHIT!” Then “they” scurry about in their posh offices and re-write and re-number the laws that we the people have discovered do exist and which actually HELP people.
I saw this “changing the law to hide the truth” with the Bank Act in early 2000’s and here’s another example (of many I’m sure).
Let’s take a look, shall we….
If you read the new, very short section 35 and compare it to all the specific, clear sections that are repealed… has the law really changed?
Have you lost rights or remedies?
Or did the law just become less clear and less specific – but does the new version still state the same principle because the principles cannot be lost, only hidden or made less clear?
Here is the new claim of right section – now only ONE Section instead of many:
35. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.
Were there any specific “rights LOST” or does the one section still apply to each situation that was repealed?
Remember “they” cannot remove rights because “they” never gave you any rights BUT “they” are bound to RESPECT the rights you have (unwritten rights mostly).
“They” usually ignore your rights BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU WON’T DO ANYTHING IF “THEY” IGNORE YOUR RIGHTS.
That’s why we need to learn how to complain effectively when our rights are infringed.