Protecting our Property Rights by Catherine Mitchell

Published June 1, 2017

The eroding of our property rights has occurred through ignorance of the property laws of this country. The political decision makers be they tribunals, municipal, provincial and/or federal representatives are ignorant of the property laws accorded citizens of Canada through English Common Law, French Civil Law and the Canadian Constitution – in which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes human rights that are so fundamental no Parliament can pass laws that violate them.

Our legal system is not working for the common man. The system is expensive to engage; impossible to understand; time consuming; and decisions are based on minute technicalities. The spirit of the law and the intention of the law has given way to complicated legal processes. Often the person or group that can hire the most expensive lawyer wins the decision at the expense of the common man.
We have become a nation of decision makers where fact checking has given way to a majority vote. So, the thinking is that “as your elected representative I will make the decisions for you.” Rather paternalistic and not working when lack of knowledge and lack of due diligence means decisions are based on opinion and popularity but not the laws of this country.

Consider the Green Energy Act – rules and regulations were changed with the stroke of a pen; little discussion was allowed and many rural residents have had their property rights violated with no compensation.

We are overburdened with opinions. In the 1970’s we adopted the approach that everyone’s opinion matters – as in “I value your opinion– I am listening to you.” This has morphed into “Your opinion is valid.” So, every opinion is equally valid and no correction is allowed. Validity has been replaced by popularity. Fact finding and evidence based research take too long; the best conclusions are inconclusive – “more research is required”; the wording is too scientific or legalistic; and no one wants to be held accountable so decisions are made that support the ideology of the people in power or the highest paid lawyer.

Really, we have become a country with the legal system controlled by the group with the most money, which erodes the very democracy upon which this country was built.

This letter was submitted to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Property Rights and copied to Tom Black for publication in the Landowner Magazine.

4 Responses to “Protecting our Property Rights by Catherine Mitchell”

  1. Grace Joubarne June 1, 2017

    Unfortunately, everything they are doing is civil law and is lawful for their corporate organization. After 1982 we had a right to be free of association with this corporate organization and its ‘civil’ law system and to be free of its impositions.

    That was the whole point of the ICCPR and ICESCR which are expressed in internal laws starting with the Constitution 1982…to set us free.

    Because this information was kept from us by the corporate government, we still think we are in servitude as we were pre-1982. Other than the wealthy who know all this, we, the common people have no knowledge or skills needed to act as free Canadians should/would.

    That is changing rapidly as more people are listening to those who have done the research. If you try to stand on the Magna Carta, the Constitution of 1867 and all that pre-1982 ‘stuff’, you are going to get burned and the Supreme Court of Canada has made that perfectly clear.

    Lawyers can only work in civil law; they cannot represent an individual standing on their Full Legal Capacity and demanding Administration of Justice. Fundamental rights and freedoms do not apply to corporations…only human beings can enjoy life (enjoy being an operative word in the law).

    JUDGES must work in civil law, unless the individual invokes their rights (the correct way) under ICCPR, ICESCR. That means that every individual must learn about the entire root of all this and know what they are talking about…an individual cannot just fill out a form and expect the Courts to shift gears.

    The Law Societies, which are subsidiary corporations of the parent CROWN, have done what the can to push Common Law out of the Courts because there is no money in it whatever when individuals represent themselves to stand on their FLC and demand the Administration of Justice (which is a term meaning they are there to enforce their common law and fundamental rights.

    Judges take an oath to not ever disclose what they know and they take another oath to serve the interests of the CROWN (a profiteering corporation like any other)…yet there we stand in their court and expect them to save us!

    Its not hard to learn how to do stand on the law given to the People…what is hard is to get heard when you have the facts but all kinds of white noise nonsense keeps people from hearing what you can offer.

  2. Steve Ilievski June 6, 2017

    Thanks Grace for trying to open some eyes and ears on common law, it is the one key that can unlock the padded cell (courts) in which they have locked us up in their insane assulym (court system). Here are two excellent sources to educate ourselves on common law and free us from their straight jacket.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbaiSrtk_dQ
    http://www.annavonreitz.com/
    Karl Lentz has many videos, watch them and take notes, same for Ana’s articles. The landowners, instead of wasting their time on useless monthly meetings in which they talk on useless topics, should instead keep educating themselves and others on “common law” and how they can use common law to push back against the criminal corporations that are depriving us of our property. By criminal corporations I am referring to governments and courts at all levels.

  3. Steve Ilievski June 6, 2017

    Many people are confused when they think of government. They think of politicians and elections. They think these people are their representatives who fight for the interests of their constituents. However people are often left confused and bewildered when these so called representatives say one thing to get elected but once elected do the opposite of what they said as candidates. What people need to understand is that elections are a charade, they are not real, they are there to distract the populace into thinking they have representation. Elections also confer legitimacy to a criminal enterprise. The truth is that we are ruled by a corporation and we elect a CEO of that corporation, a sock puppet, who takes orders from the owners of the corporation. Who are the owners of the corporation? Look up the owners of the Federal Reserve of the US. They are the same owners who own and run the Bank of Canada. Now you know why everything in this corporation called Canada is a for profit corporation and we are corporate serfs. That is why politicians push for GMO’s, forced vaccinations, confiscation of private property and the list is practically endless. The best we can do is to unmask this fiction by not participating in it and that starts by not voting for anyone ever, and then insisting on our Common Law rights which they still have to respect, but only when we demand that they do so.

  4. Gregory John Tudehope June 15, 2017

    Extract from:- “The Law,” “The State,” and Other Political Writings, 1843–1850 Frédéric Bastiat
    Page 44
    I put the question whether the rights of property are not among those that, very far from deriving from positive law, predate the law and are its raison d’être. (reason for being or justification for existence) This is not, as might be thought, a slight or pointless question. It is a vast and fundamental one.
    The answer to it is of the highest concern to society, something you will be convinced of, I hope, once I have compared the origins and effects of the two opposing theoretical systems. Economists consider that property, like the person, is a providential fact.
    The law does not give existence to one any more than to the other.
    Property is a necessary consequence of the constitution of man.
    In the full sense of the word, man(human creature)is born a property owner, since he is born with needs whose satisfaction is essential to life, with organs and faculties whose exercise is essential to the satisfaction of these needs. These faculties are merely an extension of the person, and property is just an extension of these faculties. To separate man from his faculties is to make him die; to separate man from the product of his faculties is once again to make him die.
     
    Extract from:-“The Law of Private Right” by GEORGE H.SMITH copyrighted, 1890
    Page 7
    There is, indeed, an apparent exception to this proposition in the case of corporations, or bodies politic, which are said to be fictitious persons, and in whom rights are said to be vested ; but in reality, in all such cases, the rights reside, not in the so-called fictitious person, but in the persons composing the corporations; that is to say, in the officials of the corporation, in trust for the stockholders. The same proposition is also true of the State (the type of all corporations, or bodies politic), of which we habitually speak as being vested with rights, and subject to obligations. But in fact, the so-called rights of the government are vested in its officers, and are purely fiduciary in their nature, being held by them in trust for the people.
    The proposition, therefore, remains absolutely and universally true, that rights can be vested only in human creatures.
    There is also implied in the idea of a right some person or thing in or over which it exists, and who or which may be called the subject of the right/ Thus, in the case of a right to property the subject of the right is the thing owned, and in the case of other rights of ownership— as, for instance, that of the parent in a child—it is the person in or over whom the right exists, who, considered as the subject of a right, occupies a position analogous to that of a thing. In the case of an obligation, the subject of the right is said to be the obligation; but in its ultimate analysis it is, in fact, the person owing the obligation.
    There is also implied in the creation or initiation, and, therefore, in the existence, of any right the happening of some event in which it originated, and the same is also implied in every modification, and in the termination of every right.
    Or, in other words, every right originates in the happening of some event or series of events, and no right can be varied or terminated except by the same means.
     
    Thus the right of self-ownership, or property in one’s person, originates upon the mere event of one’s birth, is varied by the event of his reaching maturity and terminates with his death. For this right, though at first restricted by the necessary conditions of infancy, is born with every human creature, and upon his reaching maturity becomes unrestricted, except by the necessary conditions imposed by the rights of others; and finally, at the end of his life, dies with him.


Leave a Comment
 
 

E-Newsletter!
Get all the latest OLA news
delivered monthly right to your inbox!
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons