A non-profit site educating Canadians and Americans
about the differences between human-beings,
natural-persons and artificial-persons
man & woman,
created by God.
How the Government created your new identity and
how you can reclaim your unalienable rights.
created by Man.

For the text of this web-site is with the absence of the legal-advice.
Home About Help Download Links Contact

National ID Card
Government  Tricks
The Name Game
The Legalized Criminal Racket
Formation of Statutes
Fundamental Rights
Natural vs. Artificial
Birth Certificate (BC)
Social Insurance Number (SIN)
Right to Contract
Statistics Act
Income Tax Act
Bank Act
Excise Tax Act
Driver's Licence
Cycles of Civilizations
Do you need a Lawyer?
English Grammar
Educational Seminars

Fundamental Rights:

The Common Law rights and freedoms of Life, Liberty and Property, as enshrined by the Magna Charta of 1215 still remain intact for the natural-person (human being), John Doe.

The artificial-person/corporation JOHN DOE only has rights as provided by its creator, the Government.

John Doe remains free in the Common Law world.

JOHN DOE is a slave in the Statute Law world.

A new web-site has been created to assist with your understanding of your fundamental rights, click here to visit this new site by Steve.

The correct spelling for this Great Charter is Magna Charta, but the pronunciation is like "carta" (the H is silent). If you use the incorrect spelling, you will not be referring to the correct document. Here is the definition, and spelling, from Black's Law Dictionary 4th edition:

Magna Charta. The great charter.
The name of a charter (or constitutional enactment) granted by King John of England to the barons, at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, and afterwards, with some alterations, confirmed in parliament by Henry III, and Edward I. This charter is justly regarded as the foundation of English constitutional liberty. Among its thirty-eight chapters are found provisions for regulating the administration of justice, defining the temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, securing the personal liberty of the subject and his rights of property, and the limits of taxation, and for preserving the liberties and privileges of the church. Magna Charta is so called, partly to distinguish if from the Charta de Foresta, which was granted about the same time, and partly by reasons of its own transcendent importance.

The Canadian Constitution & Fundamental Rights:

Here is an interesting article from David:Kevin-Lindsay about International Law and the Constitution. Worth reading.

The International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights:

Here is an educational video about the ICCPR, from eternally aware.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

Here is a PDF document that discusses UCC and US Court Jurisdiction. A good read.

Without Prejudice?

Ever wondered what these words mean? Here is an idea, quoted from a document prepared by Lynne Meredith:

Protecting your Rights by Signing Documents

by Lynne Meredith

It is a maxim of American law that any statute contrary to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, is null and void and no Citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional law.

"An unconstitutional statute, though having the form of law, is in reality, no law and imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no actions performed under it..." (late Am Jur 2d Sec. 256).

It is also a maxim of the Common Law that no Sovereign American Citizen of the 50 Republic states can be compelled in any action against his or her will. The 50 Republic states currently have an admitted [Territorial] "Government de facto," which Black's 2nd Law Dictionary defines as, "a government not established according to the Constitution ... a government deemed unlawful, deemed wrongful or unjust, which nevertheless receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the community."

When the Citizen educated in the constitutional, lawful and just (de jure) American law decides he or she no longer wishes to join the herd of habitually obedient (enslaved) sheeple being led to slaughter by blind and unquestioned obedience to unconstitutional, unjust, and unlawful laws, he or she is sometimes faced with defacto employees and foreign agents, uneducated in law, oblivious to our Constitution and drunk with a false sense of power. Faced with guns, handcuffs and a potential night in jail while the law is debated, such a Citizen can be put in a position of "compromise" in order to "buy their peace." There is a remedy and recourse, out of "de facto" statutes and back to "de jure constitutional law."

Typically all it takes to "buy your peace" with the de facto government agent or official is a signature. In their mind, you have consented to waive your rights. However, if you write the words, "Without Prejudice" above your signature, you are declaring that you are not waiving any of your rights under the Constitution or Common Law and any document containing the words "Without Prejudice" cannot be used as evidence against you, in Court or otherwise.

"Where an offer or admission is made "without prejudice,"... it is meant as a declaration that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are to be considered as thereby waived or lost..." Black's Law Dictionary.

The following information comes from Bouvier's 1914 Law Encyclopedia, under "Compromise."

"It must be permitted of men to buy their peace without prejudice to them. It has been held that one may buy his peace by compromising a claim which he knows is without right (Daily v. King 70 Mich. 568, 44 N.W. 959) but the compromise of an illegal claim will not sustain a promise." Read v. Hitching. 71 ME 590.

Documents Signed "Without Prejudice" are Not Admissible as Evidence "It may, however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be 'without prejudice' will not be admitted in evidence...an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, "without prejudice" but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible ...". Ferry v. Taylor 33 Mo. 323, Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier 13 Ga. 406.

"When correspondence had commenced "without prejudice" but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial; 6 Ont 719.

When you do not want to be "presumed" to be waiving rights or acquiescing to de facto statutes, you should sign all documents, "without prejudice," above your signature. These documents cannot then be used as prima facia evidence against you. However if you are making claims that you may want to use as potential evidence in your favor, do not sign "without prejudice.".

Vancouver Property Rights Denined:

In 1972, Vancouver City took away some property rights from those living in Vancouver, B.C. without any Member of Parliament attempting to protect those rights. This is more evidence of the Government's desire to remove your rights one by one. Read here for the current research into this situation.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)