Question – If the patents mean nothing, why… by Elizabeth Marshall

Published March 1, 2015

If the patents mean nothing, then why are they still issuing them?

If the patents mean nothing, why is there a Public Lands Act?

If the patents mean nothing, then why are they mentioned in people’s deed. “Subject to any reservations in the Crown Grant”?

If the patents mean nothing, why is there section 109 of the BNA, supported by section 56 of the draft of the BNA?

If the patents mean nothing, then why did it take letters patent to constitute the 1982-83 Constitution?

If the patents mean nothing, then why do the Letters Patent of privilege still stand from 1947 for the Governor General, where it is only the sitting Sovereign, their heirs and successors who can, under section 15, revoke, amend, alter said letters patent?

If the patents mean nothing, then why is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 still alive in section 25 of the present constitution, as the R.P. of 1763 is letters patent?

If the patents mean nothing then why is it government which must pay out for land claims to the Natives? Because it’s based on the treaties and the patents of the land, and could it be because the “fee” is not in the Crown or the province/federal government, and yet they must honor these contracts?

If letters patent mean nothing, then why is it that the courts still use Magna Carta to support their positions?

If letters patent mean nothing, why is it that the legislators use Magna Carta to support their positions?

If letters patent mean nothing, why is it that the anniversary of Magna Carta is so important to Canadians and that lawyers state that it is the foundation of the British Commonwealth, considering Magna Carta is Letters Patent?

If the patents mean nothing, then why does Magna Carta still stand?

If the patents mean nothing, then where is the support for common law rights, as common law rights are protected under Magna Carta and the British North America Act…that is why we still have common law private property rights?

If the patents mean nothing, then why does the Federal government’s guide to the Federal Real Properties Act state that the patents are: a) need to be kept for jurisprudence, and b) are the writing of the Sovereign, sealed with the Great Seal?

If the patents mean nothing, then MPPs cannot be MPPs because it took letters patent for their positions?

If the patents mean nothing, then there can be no courts, there can be no judges, there can be no senators…and there can be no municipalities, conservation authorities, townships, counties, etc.?

There are a number of different letters patent, so for anyone to state that some still have authority and others do not, they don’t even understand these documents. When it is letters patent for land, and the right, title and interest which go with said patent, the Crown domain has been removed, therefore, those opposed to the patents have nothing.

If not for letters patent the entire country fails, because the Sovereign had to delegate its domain and/or administration over the “Crown/public land” and everything that went with it for the country to even be created. And during the creation of the country, granted the administrative authority over what Crown and/or public land/property, which had not already been granted/patented, and had been established as public property. That is why we still have Supreme Court cases which support the private property rights of the people, because they are protected under the BNA.

“3rd. If the king’s grants are upon a valuable consideration, they shall be construed strictly for the patentee.” – The general rule expressed by Joeseph Chitty, Esq., on Prerogative, ch.16. sec. 3. 393.

We just need to be thankful that property rights are NOT entrenched in the Charter (1982-83) or we wouldn’t have any rights at all. I hope this explains why the patents actually mean quite a bit…

8 Responses to “Question – If the patents mean nothing, why… by Elizabeth Marshall”

  1. Liz February 9, 2017

    To Jay Trainer…If the patents won’t stand, as you say, than why are there a number of court cases that say they do? Also glossa is defined as a term for language and/or part of glossary so we are wondering what you mean by “Look up glossa”? Perhaps one might take some time and do some research before one makes comments. One might also wonder which level of government you are from…

  2. jay trainer October 20, 2016

    you people don’t understand how glossa works. Look up glossa. Your patents will not stand.

  3. Troy April 27, 2016

    This video explains why you cannot access the rights the law says a man has.
    The Birth Certificate and You

  4. Anthony Troy Woods May 25, 2015

    I recommend this great audio. You must launch a federal suit proving they infringed on your right to enjoy property or some other constitutionally protected right.
    Remove Your Property From The Tax Roll

  5. Steve Ilievski March 8, 2015

    Bob Marcellus, please go to your computer and type, “Tricks and traps – MKC part 1 – 1 feb 2015” Watch all the videos from this man. I believe it will save you time, money, and most of all nerves.

  6. Bob Marcellus March 1, 2015

    I have been charged for camping on my own property.

    “I contend that a by-law restricting my lawful use of my property can also be characterized as nuisance, trespass, extortion, intimidation, and inducing breach of contract. It has caused a lot of mental anguish for my wife and I and my family over a number of years.”

    … and indeed submitting a claim could very well be a future consideration.

    Can anyone answer the question ” does the Attorney Generals not have to provide full disclosure to me?”

  7. Gary March 1, 2015

    Interesting points, I see that Common Law generated the patents and I’m wondering if anyone has attempted to fight this battle using Common Law tactics? If you are finding yourself in a Statutory Court, either as a defendant or complainant then you’re going to fight an uphill battle in courts that are created by, run by, and presided over by Bar members. A very tough battle.

    “The charges against me are tantamount to charging me for trespassing on my own property, which is ridiculous.”

    Using common law tactics the following is an example of how to proceed, you will have to submit a “Claim” against whomever is bringing you into court to answer a “Complaint” of trespass, that claim would also be trespass against your property, that shows harm that the “man” whom claims they have an interest in your property has committed. Demand a living man or [wo]man to come forth and testify in open court that they have a verifiable interest in the property, prove that claim of interest. If not then order a discharge of this matter.


  8. Bob Marcellus March 1, 2015

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    The charges against me are tantamount to charging me for trespassing on my own property, which is ridiculous.

    My defense document (based on the Property and Civil Rights Act of Ontario and my Crown Patent) has been submitted to the Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario of Ontario – Constitutional Law branch, as I was instructed to do at my last court appearance.

    I submitted the document two weeks ago. Last Tuesday I spoke with the lawyer representing Ontario about the process going forward. His answer was that I would receive a letter stating their decision on whether they have decided to intervene or not. I asked if they do decide to intervene whether they would indicate in their letter if they were going to support me or oppose me. The answer was that they would not tell me that.

    Now it is my intention to request full disclosure of their position, 15 calendar days prior to my court date.

    I in my defense document have provided full disclosure. Is it not only fair that they have to provide disclosure a well?


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get all the latest OLA news
delivered monthly right to your inbox!