Clarity Act - Dallas

Join The Zoom 7 PM Daily https://us02web.zoom.us/s/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09#success Finally, the Solution We have all been Working For! (Make it go Viral) What if you could build your own Nation? Well, we have great news. We always had the Lawful Right To create a Nation. Let’s start here. We're going to look at some articles In the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights So, this brings us all up to where we want to start talking about some ideas that we have been educating at Constitutional Conventions have been educating since 1980. We like this one. Because itis a bit more specific. And so, if we look at what you got to understand about laws, we talked about jurisdiction. And jurisdictions go down from international to local. And so international law is, as far as the matrix is concerned, international law is at the top of the heap. There are things above that, no question. And I don't know what all of them are. This stuff can get esoteric. And it can actually lead to really dark places and how it all links together, but I try to just come at all this stuff from a real layman's perspective. This document, the ICCPR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Has been signed on by every Western nation. That includes the United States, that's Canada, like every Western European country. Most of the major countries in the world. Have signed on to this. Now, what that means is that is the highest law in the land because it's a treaty. So, you have treaties, then you have federal laws, state laws and so on and so forth. Treaties are the most superior laws. So, if a country is in violation of a treaty. That country can be held in an international court. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say the courts are this, that, and the other, and they're all great. That's not the case at all. My way in law has never been to just go and fight in court. Judges are corrupt. They're mostly Freemasons. There are all kinds of stuff to it, but it's to just win in the paperwork and take it to them and call them on it. I'm not going to get into too many specific, I don't want to get into any specific remedies. In this discussion tonight. Remedy is so powerful that it doesn’t serve most people because most people won't benefit from it any ways. But if we screw these things up, they can change it for us because they can change the laws. So, I won't get into specific remedies, but I'm going to talk about things in abroad enough way that I think it'll be obvious. Where things can go with this. But so, we look at article one in the nest there. And again, this is of the ICCPR.(the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.) This document is higher than any federal document in the United States or Canada. Okay. And they both signed up for this. So, Article 1 says. And article1 is article 1for one reason, because this says everything about the way things are in the matrix okay. Legal language, words are very specific. All people have the right of self-determination, period. That sentence alone is significantly powerful. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Period. That article alone almost says everything you need to know about your remedy is that it's almost all right there. Yes, it gets more specific, and we'll look at some other articles. But in this article alone, we have the right to self-determination. What do you think 1776was?By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain. The Declaration summarized the colonists' motivations for seeking independence. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/declaration#:~:text=By%20issuing%20the%20Declaration%20of,colonists'%20motivations%20for%20seeking%20independence. That was exactly self-determination. Now, the ICCPR wasn't written then. The ICCPR came after the so-called revolution in the United States. But in 1776, what is essentially was happening was people In the United States of America, not the United States as the corporate fiction in Washington, D.C, but in the land of the many states of America. They Said, we've had enough with these British Parasites controlling our lives, our resources. We want to start our own bank and print our own money. Where we are going to go with a lot of this stuff, because we're going to look at somethings that our teams have compiled and written and I don't even spend that much time on the ICCPR, but we're going to look at things that we have written base on what's out there and newer things. But the fact that we have the right to self-determination. This is the Key that opens the door and slams the door on them!I It Says everything you need to know. Okay, we could go down deeper on this and maybe we will in the conversation but that alone says that we have the right, and you'll notice this says all people have the right All people are very specific. It's not all persons, all residents, all citizens. It's all people, meaning all the people in a geographical area. You know, I'm very set up as far as, you know, the shit hitting the fan, if you will. But my context becomes a little different out here because What I need out here is resources with people. We're lacking that in a rural area, whereas in a metropolitan area, you have a lot of that, but it's also one of these double-edged swords where people and many people can be your greatest resource, or they can be your greatest liability. You know, it won't be a shocker to say it, but if you're a white guy living in Atlanta, Georgia, you know, you're not as good off as crime being done to you ascertain other places in the world are maybe. Like in Alberta, for example, people can be your biggest asset, but they can also be your biggest liability. So, one thing I think needs to happen with people just like what they did in 1776 or attempted to. We need to separate ourselves from the state through self-determination. Through people coming together. And basically, saying Instead of trying to change Let's say in imagining we're America trying to separate from the brits is… Is… instead of trying to win an election in their House of Commons. They just separated by a declaration of independence and saying, we're done. Constitutional Conventions have been educating this for 30 plus years and now more are learningfrom their important Message. Constitutional Conventions has drafted a declaration and has drafted a constitution – also has created drafts for interim administration and Natural Law grand jury of 12 We can essentially do the same thing. There's no reason why we People Cannot do exactly the same plan. People livein geographical regions. So, a small group of men/women in an area have the lawful right to create whatever they want as the existing system is de-facto, fraud, and has NO Authority. If you're in North America, we have a ton of space, despite the number of migrants being dumped into this landmass known as North America. In both countries, Canada, and the US, we still have a ton of space. People can move. In Canada, United States, you still have the freedom to move around. And I don't think you'll ever lose that freedom for a while, but they'll make it economically unsustainable in some ways. But people can move. So, with that, We think a big solution for people is to start getting to geographical regions and writing. A declaration of Independence and a constitution draft with a Bill of Rights. Which Constitutional Conventions have drafted for those to view. And the reason we are not suggesting that we do this through elections is that I think you can all see and agree it has been no more than fraud from its inception. The establishment has complete control!!! They have complete control of Trump and his administration. What's coming down through the rhetoric. Of Trump and RFK and Maha. And then there's that latest image where they're all eating at McDonald's like, which to me looks like absolute blatant gaslighting. This deception is in the bag for the establishment and they're just going to swing it back to the right. So, we came out of many years of woke liberal neoliberalism stuff. Now we're just going to burn the woke stuff as an effigy and it won't make any difference. And then we're going to go to right wing (same in Canada with Daniel Smith or Pierre) neoconservatism with his just warmongering and everybody, and they're going to virtue signal about it the whole way because. These people have control of everything. If you have to, you have to realize that you have to realize we are the ones that we've been waiting for, that we are the creations of the creator. And we are the ones that create. And all this establishment is due to make a new world order All they have done is get us to do it. That's how their scam works. They get us to do the work. And we do the work through tacit agreement, which means We didn't reply to the letter that said, if you don't agree, if you don't reply within 21 days. You're going to accept. Or you accepted it in some way or another we noticed. In public notice, we never responded. We never cared. We basically got to the place where we are. Because people stopped caring because the corporate establishment made the world so comfortable for us that we've traded all of our rights and responsibilities for privileges and benefits through conveniences. And we're out of state now, and this is another reason why we know politics is hopeless and rhetorical. You might think that, you know, there's going to be No changes. But then you go to Walmart. Okay. And you look at the people there. And you go, what the hell. This is insane. And you could go to any Walmart anywhere and yeah, it's going to be a little different in rural Alberta than it is in, say, Atlanta, Georgia. A lot different. By and large, what you find is that the common man, the common individual i in our society is out of shape, unhealthy. Can't even process thoughts and go along with everything the establishment wants them to do. And you might be able to sway some of them here and there, but with great cost. With great cost to your reputation, with great cost to your economic well-being like we saw during the COVID scam, sticking your neck out to wake up the masses isn't really that lucrative when you look at time for return. It's return on investment economically is very poor. And so, What I say is… CRAP. You're not going to convince these people of anything. What you're better off doing is getting together with other like-minded people who are hardcore, who have the same values as you and are, willing to step forward And form some kind of economic relationship with you. And I think This is where the rubber must meet the road if people have to start coming together geographically. And that's a tough thing to do because people are like, well, how do I move and what do I do?And there's all kinds of logistics to consider with that. If we don't and we get caught up in these liberal hellholes. We will be burnt at the stake. Now, all you must do is look at history to see how that goes. Is that in every… communist or authoritarian rise to power the people that fled the cities did better than the others. Now people say, oh, what about the kulak sand all that? Yeah, they did go around and collect farms and all that. http://www.orlandofiges.info/section10_RevolutionfromAbove/TheWaragainsttheKulaks.php But those are even in the farming areas. I'm talking about people who need to move to rural areas, get out of all these types of areas. Where there's large scale agriculture and such. But people that were outside of it fared better. And yeah, if people don't start getting out of these areas and start Having economic relationships with individuals, they can't form an economy of any scale because if you live in an apartment. And you don't have any reason to know your neighbors except for maybe the guy who lives across the hall from you because one time your blender broke and you needed to borrow his sugar or phone or what ever to make some gravy. Or some thing, you know what I mean? You have no reason to know them. Whereas when you live in a rural area. You will get to know the people who live closest to you very well. Because yo have a reason to. If you're in a cold climate, sometimes you're sharing the duties of managing the snow on the road below. That's what it is up here. You might trade vegetables or eggs with them. You might help a guy get his truck stuck out of the mud. There are hundreds of reasons why the rural areas are more productive! That you'll get to know people who live around you in rural areas. And that's important. Because if we don't have reasons to have economic relationships with one another. We can't really coexist. We're just going to be soloed out in these Twitter spaces. And these spaces are good, right? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying let's throw the baby out with the bathwater. But you need to have reasons to get together with like-minded people. And we must all start to educate about why moving to geographically places is the key. Different takes on what that might look like, but we agree almost inevitably that there's going to be a break at some point, that people are going to move away, and as they do, they're going to need to figure out. How they collectivize and normalize this new world outside of this big machine. What might serve as a framework for what they more described, which was kind of the physical manifestation of what that division might look like. Totally. But even in U.S. History we've seen balkanization, right? We've seen groups try to break away. It's happened many times. Even in Canada, there's history with that, with the Russian Dukeabors who were Russian dissidents who fled Soviet Russia and came to Canada and were granted quarter sections by the government. And they became just these sorts(agrarians)relating to the ownership and use of land, especially farmland, or relating to the part of a society or economy that is concerned with agriculture. Then eventually they didn't want the government o abuse them anymore. They did NOT want their kids to be forced into public schools because they were indoctrinating them with bullshit. And they rounded these people up and put them in concentration camps. Not so much concentration, but they rounded up the kids and put them in residential schools and such. But you don't hear about that because they were white. And so, it doesn't suit the political narrative they are Pushing to suck in the Natives (all born here are Native to the Land)with the UNDRIP narrative. But it was essentially the same thing where people were just staking a claim. And if you look at some of their history, they have all these legal charters they wrote that say, we do not bow to tyrants and stuff. We have seen these many times. And so, what we are going to propose here. This has been done before. People do these things because everything gets to a breaking point Where you must do it, right? You have to um eventually say enough is enough because if we keep playing their game, it's over so What I want to talk about now is three things that WE think are needed There's no reason any of us can't do this. All that is required is people coming together and promoting all the hard work Constitutional Conventions Teams have created. The hard work has been completed now it’s time to make the information go viral.! A. Writing a Constitution Draft to view. B. Researching the Declaration, they have created to view. C. Recruiting alternate media, live streamers to finally start sending the Solution rather than the regurgitated distraction. D. If these so called truther groups or association will not educate their followers then we know what side they are on, E. Be a clear message, they are part of the controlled opposition. F. If groups push Citizens, indigenous, UNDRIP, Treaties, Charter, Bill of rights, Act, Statues, they are not educated and are doing grave harm. Constitution of The Sovereigns' https://rumble.com/v29il48-constitution-of-the-sovereign.html We can do the same thing but set up this administration, so everyone is protected. And once it's agreed upon by a bunch of people and people in a geographical location, they now have created their own nation. The benefits of this are as follows: A. Land ownership B. No Taxes extortion C. No Income tax extortion D. All the resources belong to the people in the newly formed Nation. E. Property Protection These above are just a few of the benefits and there are numerous more we may add later. That's all the government is supposed to be. What some people believe is or call government as created by a small group of people who got together Over the last hundreds, if not thousands of years and said, hey, guys, what to do to rule the world? Let's get together and make it happen! And that's all they've done. So, there's no reason to even accept this fraud! The rest of us can't do it. The problem is, the average Walmart shopper. That's the problem. And so that's why I say. Some level of regional balkanization is the only way forward if you're going to say, let’s get a county such as Yellowhead County or if need be even go to a smaller geographical area such as Wildwood, Hansville or Peers. You do not have to get the entire land mass of what we will call Alberta the entire state together on this, no way it's going to happen. If you say, let's get the entire state of Missouri together on this, no way it's going to happen. And rural is very different from urban, suburban, and peri-urban. When you look at maps of how people are distributed in the world You can correlate tyranny to how people are placed by understanding this concept. The more concrete that you're surrounded by, the more tyranny you're surrounded by simply because the more concrete, the more roads, the more buildings, the more infrastructure, the more sewer services, utilities, and things like that that need to be brought in. In volve money. And there is a saying that I have in law is that where the money flows, the policy goes. So, anybody who's lived in a big city to a small town can attest to this just by observation. Think about the amount of bureaucracy in places like Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary city Compared to Peers, Niton Junction, Wildwood and numerous other locations that can move to create their own Nation. Need to remove the indoctrination of Canada, Alberta, or municipality, and replace it with hard facts to proceed forward. The smaller the town the better. It's so obviously observable and so what that means is that if you can get away from the concrete, which is where all the people are, most people are, you can get away from a significant amount of problems because now you have the variable that's outside of your control, which is the socioeconomics of a place Social and economic factors include factors such as income, education, employment, community safety and social support. The choices that are available in a community are impacted by social and economic factors. Or the crime rates of a place or whatever, you can get away from them. So, a big-time problem is solved when you don't have to worry about your car getting broken in to every night or having something stolen off your property or having your kids bike stolen from your front yard. It really changes the way you live. But out here, I can do that. I don't have to lock my doors. I can live in a way that I wouldn't have to in the city. So that alone is important. And then when you start talking about law. There's a whole other level to it. So, what we need… is we have to look at three documents. a. Declaration of Independence - b. Constitution – c. We can all write our laws. But this is not complete. So, the caveat here is this is not complete. We can all write our laws. We don't have to ask permission. We can all start by doing this ourselves. Canada The Illusion https://rumble.com/v60o56t-canada-the-illusion.html?e9s=src_v1_upp Every Canadian Must See - Canada a Country Without a Constitution https://rumble.com/vprldi-every-canadian-must-see-canada-a-country-without-a-constitution.html Elliot McDavid talks FACTs - Canada is an Illusion - Videos are in Description https://rumble.com/v637sjh-elliot-mcdavid-talks-facts-canada-is-an-illusion-video-are-in-description.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Join in Tues, Thursday Sunday 7 Alberta 9 Eastern https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09

This short video details how the Clarity Act, 2000, is designed to make any referendum fail. A referendum is completely unnecessary because each Province and Territory has in fact been fully independent and sovereign since December 11, 1931, thanks to Sections 2, 7 and 11 of the Statute of Westminster.

Clarity Act, 2000 Explained catch 22 To give effect to the requirement for clarity. As set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Quebec sessions reference, and this was done in the year 2000, June 29th. Just to elaborate a little bit on the difference between an opinion of the court and a ruling of the court. Well, it's the same thing that we do. I mean, I have… 100,000 opinions, as do you. Example I like a certain kind of beer and that's my opinion. You might like another kind of beer and that's your opinion and that's really all the Supreme Court is doing. They're just giving an opinion. But now as many of you have come to realize the illegal and unlawful federal authority decided to create what they call a law. On that opinion. Now, if it was a ruling, there would have to be a case and a court case in front of them. Right. That they would make a ruling out off. In other words, they would be resolving a dispute. So you and I go to court. We get into an argument. The court then makes a ruling, which is to settle our argument. The opinion is not the same as a ruling. Opinion is just the court going, well, you know, we think This is our opinion. Yeah, it has no legal enforcement qualities to it. Well, now it does, according to them. According to the criminals… Well, and you've got to ask yourself Really, everyone must comprehend this and share this to others Section 59 of their Constitution Act was never ratified. In order for it to come into supreme law in Canada, they need to ratify it, and they have yet to do that. So think about this how does something like this have any standing in law? This was done in 2000. They still have to ratify the Constitution Act in 1982 which still to this day of May 2025 never has been satisfied or even ratified it has been 42 years since the Constitution Act of 1982 and its been in limbo since then. They never did. They tried Meeach Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord, but it never came to fruition. In other words it failed or did the deliberate ensure it failed. So lets all look at the preamble where it says, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right under international law or under the Constitution of Canada Again do not forget, they haven't ratified this constitutional act of 1982 Remember international and Canada are maritime jurisdictions, because both international and Canada are maritime jurisdictions. Also for the National Assembly Legislature, the government of Quebec to take effect this succession of Quebec from Canada unilateral. So this was happening when Quebec was looking to once again Leave. Yes Quebec they keep threatening to separate. like, this whole issue here in 2000. Most Canadians thought the whole separation issue with Quebec was over and done with with Rennie Levesque and his separatist vote was in 1976 Today most of the people thought it was finished and it continued on right up to 2000 and it still has continued Do not forget that in 76, that's when Walter F. Kuhl gave Rene Levesque, the letter. Walter F. Kuhl in detailed letter stated how can you ask for a divorce without first having a marriage. You're already separate nation. HOW CAN YOU BE DIVORCED IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN MARRIED? In other words, ever since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, by the British Government, each of the provinces of Canada has been a completely sovereign and independent state, and because the provinces have signed nothing since then constituting a Federal Union and a Federal Government, and because no such treaty has been ratified by the people of Canada, the provinces still enjoy the status of sovereignty and are privileged to use it in any way they see fit. As you will observe from the enclosed addresses, I quote eminent Canadian constitutional authorities as suggesting that the only and logical solution to the existing constitutional circumstances is the drafting and the adoption of a proper federal constitution in which the provinces can reserve for themselves any and all powers necessary to enable them to govern their provinces successfully. I am sure you can appreciate that if this were done, you could solve your economic and other problems in Quebec without resorting to separation. I feel sure that having the ability to solve your problems and still remain constitutionally part of the country of Canada, would be much more satisfactory to your supporters as well as to others within your province. It's all about money and power. That's all it is. Let us go back and in the second paragraph says, whereas any proposal relating to the breakup of a democratic state Do you find this statement of democratic state bizarre or very strange. Is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens. And once again in red, I've put in brackets slaves Whereas the government, the corporate regime of any province of Canada Incorporated is entitled to consult its population by referendum. On any issue and is entitled to formulate The wording of the referendum question. I will read it once again. Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled It's entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question. This does not mention you , me or any of the people. Now we have this movement of referendum initiated by the Citizens with the Alberta Prosperity Project and a few more controlled Groups spouting the same regurgitated nonsense. So all of you out there thinking, we're going to have referendum. They hare blowing smoke up your ass. You been duped. Now lets discuss this in further detail. This means in their words he government gets to decide the wording of the question in your referendum Not you and it gets worse. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada It's no longer an opinion, has determined that the result of a referendum on succession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity, both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves. And that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that will rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations. What this means is you can not just leave. This mean there must be a negotiations. That might… lead might lead to secession. Again this means the government has to give you permission to tell them you want to leave… Then you get to sit down with them and negotiate the possibility of leaving. Important you and I and the people do not get to sit down and negotiate. That is right the selected officials get a sit down. yes the same ones who swore and oath the King Charles. Let us not all forget what the recent dictators did in the Moron plandemic of lies and deceit. They shut down the economy, locked everyone up and forced an injection of poison or the kill shot to millions. Now you and I think of negotiations such as with a trade unions or contracts in business. And we all know from life experience negotiations take a long time and sometimes there is never an agreement and it just ends with no more negotiations. What do you do when the government says, well, we just won't recognize your referendum? They rule and own their system. This means go back to work slave and shut up or we lock you down again. And it gets better. Oh, of course it does. This is the unlawful federal government. They can do what ever they want. Do you think they want to give up there fiefdom of slavery. Not a chance. From the clarity act it goes on to say, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means More than a simple majority rule. So Really what does this mean. It means more than a majority rule, yet every law dictionary says majority rule. The Supreme Court of Canada somehow thinks it's above the law once again. And I hat to burst you bubble they are above the law, because their are no concrete laws in Canada corporation. They have the so called power to rewrite any law that suits their agenda of control And hence the simple majority rule that a clear majority in favor of secession must be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession. So what exactly does this mean in layman's terms. it means you got to have a clear majority is based on their opinion of what a clear majority is. So what do you think their clear majority is going to be 100%. 90% A clear majority will be a 100% of the people agreeing to succeed so you can come to the negotiating table to secede. I hear all this talk of 50 percent plus one, or 63 percent and so on. So let this sink in. They decide not you and I . Are this referendum going to be counted by paper or electronic vote counting machines. Now again they only get to negotiate. So say after the referendum if it every comes we have 100% vote to leave, but it's still a negotiation. This is how ridiculous this is ? And then it goes on to say, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favor of secession exist in the circumstances. Qualitative evaluation involves the “why” and the “how” and allows a deeper look at issues This means not only do you have to have a clear majority, now they're going to put a council together a group of people to make sure that you had a clear majority. The criminals are going to determine it. Do the average man and woman comprehend the referendum initiated by the people have no input at all. Are the Alberta Prosperity Project, Wexit and the 51 first state misleading people. Well of course they are. I have met with APP and Wexit and the 51 State leaders since 2020 and have show clear evidence the clarity is useless and after all this information, they still push this nonsense to millions. You may ask Why? Well because its just another distraction to keep the people walking in circles while they move forward with their UN Agenda 30 world enslavement. Every man and woman who are looking at this referendum need to be educated on what this clarity act is. Furthermore all these people such as the grand jury people you need to read this and share this so more become educated. You will never become liberated until you are educated The Clarity Act goes on to say, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that In Canada, the secession of a province to be lawful would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. This means for this secession to become lawful you have to have an amendment to the constitution that isn't lawful. This is how ridicules this really is Again they didn't ratify the Constitution Act in 1982. Who is they you may ask. Not you or I or the people but the selected agents for the corporation of Canada Both accords were deliberately sabotaged in 1987 and 1995 but the deceivers or criminals say it would take an amendment to that unlawful and illegal document to leave. Again it says would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. What constitution are they're referring to, the photocopy in Ottawa that Pierre Trudeau picked up at a gift shop in Britain of the BNA act. The photocopy of North America Act. Yeah, that's the one they have in the archives in Ottawa. The originals in the UK archives because it's their property. To add the BNA act was a document to rape, pillage, murder and enslave pheasants. The Clarity act goes on to say that such an amendment would would pre-force required negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the Government of Canada. Then it states the negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism. Democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law Lets go over this last statement for clarification - Democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law and the protection of minorities. The protection of the minorities! What is federalism ? It says a principle of government that defines the relationship between the central government at the national level and its constituents units at the regional, state, or local levels. Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and local government units. Such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise While other powers must be shared. None of this is in the Corporation of Canada We look at what democracy is mob rule and that is definitely in Canada. Constitutionalism, well, considering that Canada doesn't have one We will read it anyway. The principles of a constitutional government or adherence to them. Constitutional rule or authority. That's what it defines as and then the rule of law. A state of order in which events conform to law. Huge Problem is that Canada doesn't have the rule of law. We don't have law of the land. That's the rule of law. We have color of law, because Canada only exists on the water. If you look under the Interpretations Act and look up The definition of Canada as per their definition. It's the internal waters and external seas. In the Clarity Act whereas in light of finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be… that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession. lets look at this in more detail the clarity act states It would be for the elected representatives to determine what constitutes the clear question that you can ask. And what constitutes a clear majority? So MP's MLA's or the selected employees who swore an oath to the King not the people their job is on the line if the profit secedes. So do you think for one second that the selective representatives want to lose their job by giving you The clear question and a clear majority in a referendum? Moron fake plandemic Must educate you how they did nothing to stop and all of the libs and Cons, NDP and the Green all voted for UN Agenda 30 sustainable death sentence to the people or slaves. No. They'll be fair with all of us. If you Have read the little child case? there's how much fair you're going to get. Furthermore is states the house of commons as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians. It has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the government of Canada to enter into negotiations In relation to secession of a province from Canada. Talk about stacking the deck 100% in their favor. And yeah, this is, A P P or Wexit, is running around pushing the referendum and so… You want to waste your time? I hope Not. Who hear still think they're going to start a political party and push to have referendums and we're going to get a vote on it in in Parliament. They've already voted laws that totally, basically… they will stop any movement for a referendum by we the people. They silence we the people and use their hired guns, the selected employees for the corporation of Canada . Yes the ones who swore and oath to the King and Privy council, also to keep secrets of what is discussed. In layman's terms this means Shut up to we the people or slaves if you more up to speed on how we are truly governed under this dictatorship. In the Clarity Act it states whereas it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that the Canadian residents in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada. Unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the prophets succeed from Canada. Let this sink in for a second. Doesn't it already require them to express their democratic will to leave Canada before they even begin negotiations? Correct. here is the kicker. The termination of citizenship and other rights of Canadian citizens. What does this mean. When you secede from Canada, meaning that you're giving them the audios or goodbye or hit the road were moving on! … you're losing your citizenship. So basically, if you terminate your citizen, if this causes the termination of a citizenship, you can't have a referendum and you can't leave. It's a catch of 22. They have covered every base with landmines. Unless the population of the province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province succeed from Canada. So that would mean 100% of the population of of the province must want to secede. Yes 100% of the province. Now reality check you go to a restaurant with 10 people on what toppings they would like on a pizza. Basically not all are going to agree. Everybody gets cheese and pepperoni. That's it. Okay, good luck with that and having them agree to it. Even two people have a hard time to agree let alone several million people all have to agree. They say here clearly expressed. It's democratic will that the province secede from Canada. So what would be the democratic will? In order for the termination of citizenship, which will happen upon secession. So 100% that they are willing to give up their citizenship. Not 99, not 99.99. Not 98, but 100%. Otherwise, if it terminates citizenship, guess what? You can't do it. So they leave that to the very end. That's the catch-22. If it terminates the citizenship, guess what? Your referendum even to negotiate secession can't go forward. This is why any of these different movements that you see out there that claim… We're going to do this and attack them from within. We're going to get this and we're going to use that. How well did all the challenges when your masters locked you up, took your jobs, and told you to go home and lock yourself into your prison. So many uneducated people challenged the charter, the bill of rights, used common law and many resorted to the Magna Carta with no comprehension of what these really were. They just followed the controlled ops or agents blindly. The Magna Carta and Article 61. None of that will ever work. It does not exist or apply to slaves Here is a question did the Supreme Court of Alberta tell the people of Alberta you have no choice . The politicians or employees for the corporation of Alberta Canada can do whatever they want once they're selected they can thumb their nose at you and still get a paycheck Because they're politicians. You can't fix the system from within. These criminals have hundred years of writing laws just like this that make it impossible For you, the citizen or slave to use their system to empower you. Everything about their system is designed to keep you under their… thumb. Coming back to Article 61 of the Magna Carta, has to be the Magna Carta 1225. It cannot refer to the 1215 as the 1215 was never ratified. Even the 1225 Article 61 is no longer even relevant anymore , the last time it was ever used successfully was in 1688.in the UK and that Magna Cartas has been buried and collecting dust and never to the daylight or in law ever again. Reason is in 1689 The English Bill of Rights was created by William and Mary which basically negated the Magna Carta, which was why 1688 was the last time it was successfully used and so people who talk about using the Magna Carta today or regurgitating have no clue. They need to study their history before they lead others down the path of the dead end gang. They need to understand what they're talking about because they are blowing smoke like A P P, wexit , Concerned Canadian, Alberta proud, Alberta Separation, and other talking heads misdirecting the facts. And I've been saying that for a long time. I am happy to say… that a large number of the men and women are catching on to these facts. They're starting realize you can't use something that ceased to exist hundreds of years ago You can't use something that was created by a foreign de-facto government only exists by the power of that foreign government and has nothing to do with we, the people. Slowly, people are starting to catch on to the importance Of those three little words we the people. They are the most powerful words in any free society. Whether it's a democracy, a republic. They are, without a doubt, the most powerful words. One more major topic I want to discuss is the conflict of the traditional lands called treaty rights. The Indian Act is no different than the BNA Act, All men and women in every province have been harmed. To correct this all men and women must sit down create a contract or constitution in their respected areas. The first nations have been abused and harmed still to this current day as every other man and women in the corporations. So when I see these so called speakers for the Bands saying no separation this concerns me deeply are these individuals actually educated or compromised. Who in their right mind would want to continue with the corporation of Canada or even any of the corporations of the Provinces. These individuals must be compromised and are no longer needed to represent the majority of the first nations, Bribe after bribe keeps these globalist Chiefs workings maintain this corrupt unethical system The solution is we the people create a constitution we all can agree to , which ends the land claims as of now No One has any land its all owned by the Vatican crown corporation Time to end the fraud Dallas Hills .

Alberta Independence or the rhetoric of the fifty first state being propagated on Social engineering Media What is actually going on? First we will discuss what is being spewed out regarding Alberta to leave confederation! They use the Clarity Act as the mechanism to legally gain Alberta’s Independence! Let’s dig deep into the foundation of the Clarity Act! When groups, organizations, separation parties or independence parties mention the Clarity Act will be the mechanism. These groups mention referendums to accomplish their goals for an Independent free sovereign Nation Here we will examine the Clarity Act in full disclosure to clear up much of the disinformation and uncover the weasel words of the Clarity Act. The Importance is so you will have a clearer understanding before they make you believe something which is not true, causing you to make a wrong decision. We will also discuss the referendum mentioned in the Clarity Act! Numerous groups will mention the MAJIC words on how Alberta to become an Independent Free Sovereign Nation. Let’s get started The Clarity Act, was passed in 2000, sets out the requirements for a province to separate from Canada. According to the Act, there is no unilateral right for a province to secede from Canada under the Constitution Act 1982. One: The Act was primarily created in response to the Quebec independence movement. . Two The key requirement is that the House of Commons must determine whether there has been a "clear expression of a will by a clear majority of that province" to separate from the Canada Corporation Now what is a clear majority in the Clarity Act? The Clarity Act doesn't specify a precise percentage for a "clear majority" in the context of provincial secession. Instead, it leaves the determination of what constitutes a "clear majority" to the House of Commons. In practice, the meaning of "clear majority" would likely be subject to interpretation and debate. What is interpretation in simple words? Interpretation is the act of explaining, reframing, or otherwise showing your own understanding of something. A person who translates one language into another is called an interpreter because they are explaining what a person is saying to someone who doesn't understand. It's possible that different people might have different views on what percentage constitutes a "clear majority." That being said, there have been some discussions and proposals around this topic: * In 1999, the Quebec Premier at the time, Lucien Bouchard, suggested that a "clear majority" would mean a minimum of fifty percent plus one vote in a provincial referendum on secession. * In 2000, the Calgary Declaration, a statement signed by nine Canadian premiers, proposed that a "clear majority" would require a minimum of sixty percent support in a provincial referendum on secession. * Some scholars and experts have suggested that a "clear majority" might require an even higher threshold, such as sixty six point six percent or two-thirds or even seventy five percent support in a provincial referendum on secession. Ultimately, the determination of what constitutes a "clear majority" would depend on the specific circumstances of a provincial secession attempt and would likely involve intense political and legal debates. It's worth noting that the Clarity Act is intentionally vague on this point, leaving room for political negotiation and compromise. The Act's authors likely wanted to avoid setting a specific percentage threshold, which could be seen as too rigid or inflexible. Instead, they opted for a more nuanced approach, acknowledging that the concept of a "clear majority" can be context-dependent and subject to interpretation. Three This requirement is based on the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the Québec Secession Reference case Four In essence, the Clarity Act ensures that any secession attempt by a province must be clear, specific, and supported by a significant majority of the province's population Six This Act is crucial in understanding the legal framework for provincial secession from Canada Five Sources in description of this video Has and of these groups or organizations mentioned the seven provinces in the Clarity Act! In Layman's terms the clarity act state seven provinces Must agree! The Clarity Act's seven provinces agreement requirement refers to the condition that at least seven provinces, representing at least fifty percent of the Canadian population, must endorse any constitutional change related to provincial secession Six This requirement is part of the Clarity Act, which was created in response to the 1995 Quebec referendum and ongoing independence movement Seven In the context of provincial secession, the Act requires the House of Commons to determine whether there has been a "clear expression of a will by a clear majority of that province" to separate from Canada Eight This means that if a province wants to leave Canada Corporation, at least seven provinces with fifty percent of the population must agree to the change __________________ Let’s investigate amendments to the Constitutional Act 1982 The question of provincial secession in Canada! It's a complex and debated topic. While there is no explicit provision in the Constitution Act of 1982 that allows a province to unilaterally secede from Canada Corporation, there are some important considerations to keep in mind. In 1998, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in the Reference regarding Secession of Quebec case that a province cannot unilaterally secede from Canada Corporation. The Court stated that secession would require a constitutional amendment, which would need to be negotiated and agreed upon by the province, the federal government, and other provinces. However, the Court also stated that if a province were to hold a clear referendum on secession, the federal government would have a duty to negotiate the terms of secession in good faith. Here is the Red Flag no one is mentioning - Good faith – Has Canada Corporation ever acted in Good faith! The covid 19 scam must be a clear in everyone’s mind how Canada corporation acted in good faith! If anyone thinks Canada Corporation is going to allow a Province to leave lawfully under their control you are being mislead or deceived! This led to the development of the Clarity Act in 2000, which sets out the rules for future referendum questions and the process for negotiating secession. So, it's clear that secession would require a complex and likely contentious process involving multiple stakeholders Who are the Stakeholders? The stakeholders are the Monarch of Canada, currently King Charles III and his heirs. As the head of the Commonwealth, the Monarch plays a significant role in Canada's constitutional monarchy. In Canada's system of governance, the King or Queen (represented by the Governor General) serves as the symbol of Canadian sovereignty and unity. The Monarch's roles and responsibilities include: One Symbolic Head of State: The King represents Canada internationally and embodies the country's history, traditions, and values. Two Head of the Commonwealth: As the head of the Commonwealth, the King promotes cooperation and friendship among its 54 member states. Three Represented by the Governor General: In Canada, the Governor General represents the Monarch and carries out ceremonial and constitutional duties, such as dissolving Parliament and issuing the summons to form a government. While the Monarch is a significant stakeholder in Canada, the actual governance of the country is carried out by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the Parliament of Canada. This system is often referred to as a "constitutional monarchy" or a "parliamentary democracy." Here is the Red Flag most people do not comprehend The British North American Act of eighteen sixty seven was renamed to the Constitutional Act of nineteen eighty two and only ratified by the de-facto Queen Elizabeth the second. This Now has been passed on to her heirs King Charles the Third ----------------------------- In this context, the King's role is NOT ceremonial and symbolic, The King is the actual decision-making power and uses the Governor General and Lieutenant governors in each Province to carry out his demands. The representatives all swear an oath the King and his heirs NOT to the people. The Canadian Parliament is created by the King and the governor general Have you heard of Prorogation Prorogation is a complex and often controversial topic in Canadian politics. To clarify, prorogation refers to the power of the Governor General (or the King, in certain circumstances) to suspend Parliament This effectively ends the current parliamentary session, thereby thwarting any ongoing legislative business or potential votes of non-confidence. In Canada, prorogation has been used in various contexts, including: 1. Routine prorogation: At the end of a parliamentary session, the Governor General typically prorogues Parliament to signal the start of a new session, accompanied by a Speech from the Throne outlining the government's legislative agenda. 2. Political strategy: Governments might request prorogation to avoid defeat on a confidence vote, buy time to regroup, or delay debates on contentious issues. 3. Crisis management: In times of national crisis or constitutional uncertainty, prorogation can be used to prevent instability or imminent defeat of the government. However, prorogation can also be seen as a controversial tool, as it can: 1. Delay democratic process: Prorogation can delay or thwart the will of Parliament, undermining the democratic process and accountability. 2. Avoid accountability: Governments might use prorogation to evade scrutiny, hide from accountability, or sidestep difficult debates. 3. Undermine confidence: Repeated or unjustified prorogation can erode trust in the government and the institution of Parliament itself. So if you actually believe the Clarity Act or any other Act will ever give you remedy you are deceived! Now to an Actual Solution to this serious escalating or threatening situation we face under this current system. Simple steps we all may work together on Educate people the facts that Canada constitutional act and the charter were never ratified. Which is a fact and been deliberately hidden from them The provinces never federated to Canada and these are facts. Education to as many people as you know that the people have a lawful Right to create a constitution for us we the people This is the first step forward to restore self governance, accountability and Prosperity to all. What is the idea that people have a right to govern themselves? Self-determination refers to the idea that individuals and groups have the right to govern themselves, to make decisions about their own lives and to determine their own future and political status without outside interference. The people have a lawful right to create a constitution that removes the de-facto Corporation of Canada -------------------------------- It is time for us to make the rules and Stop worshiping Kings Prime Ministers, MP’s MLA’s as they have usurped their authority unlawfully It is time for constitutional Committee meetings at ever local area to have this accomplished. The sooner the better for every man, women to restore their Unalienable Rights that have been denied by these tyrants masquerading as a legit government When they are NOT our government Stop referring to them as your government – they never have been your government It’s all an illusion and this must be corrected NOW – not later This is an always has been the ONLY solution – start to educate this Powerful Information The Real Power is you realizing No other man or woman has any authority over you! Voting in their system is you giving up your unalienable rights to be enslaved! I do not consent to be ruled Over by tyrants NO more. Time for us to restore self governance at the individual! Information is in the description of the video Please like, follow and share Thank you Sources for clarity act An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the ... laws-lois.justice.gc.ca Clarity Act - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org A Long and Uncertain Road to Alberta Independence www.constitutionalstudies.ca The Clarity Act (Bill C-20) - The Canadian Encyclopedia www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca Provinces Leaving Canada Part II: The Clarity Act - LawNow Magazine www.lawnow.org prb 99-42e background to the introduction of bill c-20, the clarity bill publications.gc.ca