In 2021, most people were faced with a hard choice:
Partake in a world-wide biowepaons experiment
or
Have the means to their wellbeing taken away.
“Take the jab or lose your job”
Of course, that’s called duress.
It’s unlawful and frankly, disgusting.
Maxim: Nil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus
“Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear”
It’s as though someone forced you into a box and no matter which option you choose, you’ll experience dire consequences:
Either,
a) risk being a casualty fo 5th Gen Warfare, or
b) risk your livelihood and means of security.
An outer fringe of the fringe minority could take early retirement, but
if you didn’t have your own exit strategy already set up,
You were in a box.
It makes the #justsayno movement feel
about as helpful as the #metoo movement.
So, for people who were put in that proverbial box, we had a strategy that would put employers into a box of their own; where it didn’t matter what they chose to do, they were going to be in deep ka-ka.
First, the notice said that due to the medical nature of the company policy, they (the employer) were required by law to obtain consent from the employee.
Second, in order for the employee’s reserved consent to be granted, supreme court rulings were cited to show the employer was lawfully required to provide anything the employee wished to know so that any consent given could in fact be informed.
Third, the employer was required to provide one of two things:
a) clinical trial results of any of the four products said to satisfy the employment requirements, or
b) written confirmation from their business insurance provider that any and all short- or long- term damage resulting from the mandatory scientific experiment would compensate the employee.
Can you see the box?
For the employer to be acting in accordance to law, they must accomplish one of two impossible things:
1. Get data on the product that doesn’t exist. [monographs by Health Canada still state many trials are not being published until 2027]
or
2. Get permission from their insurance company to put them on the hook for any and all damages. [which insurance companies would never do]
The employee isn’t picking a fight or saying ‘no’.
They’re simply giving notice of
what’s required for the employer to
have the employee’s consent be informed.
Of course, this didn’t always result in the employees keeping their jobs. What it did accomplish; proving the employers were intent on breaking the law to the fullest degree; which would then allow the employee to charge their employers to the fullest degree at a later date.
Here’s why I’m posting this today:
Lots of people are requesting my help with court issues.
I don’t help people with court. I never have.
My belief is: if you’re going to court, you’ve already lost.
but here’s what I would do if summoned:
- Approach the bench with two massive books; one under the crook of each arm:
a) Webster’s English Dictionary, and
b) Black’s Law Dictionary - Declare, “Whereas Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum is a maxim of law and being a man, ‘clearly not from around here’, I have brought dictionaries so that I have the required certainty of whichever language we’ll be speaking throughout these proceedings.”
Can you see the box?
For the judge to allow the proceedings to continue, they are required to either:
a) use a language members of the Bar (Crown Prosecutor) are prohibited to speak, or
b) admit they intend to speak a language foreign to me.
If they choose a), the judge is required by law to act as my translator putting him in the position to reveal the crown’s attempts at fraud and deception.
If they choose b), I’m allowed to flip through Black’s Law Dictionary whenever I damn well please, else they risk openly admitting their intention to act as slave-traders; committing against lil’ ol’ me, a crime against humanity.
If I felt extra ‘lawfully non-compliant’ [translation; sassy] that day, I’d feign a thick, heavy stutter to make the prospect of their proceeding even more awkward as they would suffer me stumbling through the whole morning.
From what I know of judges ‘in Canada’, I would expect they would choose a more expedient option: “Case Dismissed”
Again, I need to stress:
I am not providing advice here.
I don’t even know if it’d work or
if it’s even the best approach.
I’m showing you how I’d put the judge in a box and here’s the key:
Because I’m not:
– giving an order,
– resisting the Crown
– invoking common law, or
– claiming to be a ‘free man on the land’, outside their jurisdiction
they cannot come back with claims of my contempt for their court, or use their go-to fall back court ruling in Meads v Meads to have me thrown out.
As I mentioned before, though;
I have no intention of ever going to court and as such, the contracts (business relationships) I enter are in a foreign, private realm.
That way, if I needed to appear in court, the judge would take one look at the nature of my association with the applicant and say, “I do not possess any capacity of jurisdiction over this matter”
In short, it’d be a short visit.
I might even be inclined to sue for court costs.
