TO: Board Chair, CAO, CEO, Directors et al

2 months ago
1.81K

Regional District of Address Date

TO: Board Chair, CAO, CEO, Directors et al
FROM:

The enclosed documentation:
1) Proof of the Incorporation of the following entities, NOTE: government services corporations dba ("doing business as")
EDGAR Search U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
Government of Canada, (CIK 0000230098)
Government of British Columbia, (CIK 0000836136) and (CIK 0000014306)
Government of Alberta, (CIK 0000810961)
Government of Saskatchewan, (CIK 0000203098)
Government of Manitoba, (CIK 0000826926)
Ontario, (CIK 0000074615)
Quebec, (CIK 0000722803)
Province of New Brunswick, (CIK 0000862406)
Province of Nova Scotia, (CIK 0000842639)
2) Copy of The CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE; showing that Corporations by ANY name DO NOT have the legal jurisdiction to Taxation or Law Enforcement et al without a consent to contract by those involved in the transaction. Personal liability is then enforceable upon those acting illegally.

The enclosed documents show that the Regional District through its Incorporation may be operating under the "Color of Law" and as such is de-facto, un-lawful, and ultra vires.
This information is not here-say nor opinion, rather they state the facts of the matter, which are;
?- What Oath, Declaration, or Covenant was signed upon the commencement of the positions in council? This matters.
?- What jurisdiction is the office under? There are 3 possible Jurisdictions;
1) Government Office: a PUBLIC OFFICE institution, with lawful de-jure status as a holder of the "PUBLIC TRUST", Trustee with Fiduciary control, and thus legal authority to the taxation of the men and women within a geographical area, and is one of "service" to the local needs; school, hospital, peace keeping, infrastructure, courts, et al.
2) Non-Governmental Office (NGO) : a PRIVATE CORPORATE OFFICE, that provides "Service Contracts," and is known as a "Body Corporate" to "Incorporated Inhabitants." This jurisdiction requires Consent to Contract, is de-facto, un-lawful and as such has NO legal jurisdiction to taxation. The Executive Control and Authority comes from the corporation of the province wherein the office is located. The Acts, Statutes, Bylaws et al are downloaded to the district and are corporate policies.
3) Public/Private/Partnerships (PPP) : an INTERNATIONAL ENTITY, recieving downloads from a "FOREIGN" Corporation; United Nations, WHO/World Health Organization, WEF/World Economic Forum et al. This is also a de-facto, un-lawful jurisdiction with NO legal grounds to the taxation of men and women, and also requires Consent to Contract.
NOTE:
In British Columbia, as an example, The BC Assessment Authority is a CROWN Corporation, created in 1974 by the Corporation of British Columbia Inc., "in order to earn profit for the Government of British Columbia Inc., without jurisdiction nor contracts with the men and women of BC.
NOTE: There are 3 levels of lawful, de-jure governance;
Local, Provincial and Federal
- each has their sphere of jurisdiction and geographical area
- each has independent legislative, fiduciary, and judicial powers
- NO level can legislate for the other jurisdiction NOR has the authority to operate beyond its purview
These 2 questions are the most important because the answer to them will establish the personal liability through the signature/autograph put upon the documents requiring a vote.
Was there full comprehension of the Oath, Declaration, or Covenant signed when entering office as a Director? Was there time to peruse any documents requiring a vote? Most often these documents are many pages long and were made over many years, by legal firms and lawyers whose signatures are NOT contained therein.
Whose is?
Making that signature "personally" liable for the desicions made.
Was there full comprehension of the difference between the legal wording contained therein, and the knowledge of their meanings? Such as person, individual, constituent, citizen,et al. "Legalese" is a language unto itself and is the basis for most FRAUD, which in law vitiates everything.

The men and women in our Regional District Office, were empowered by the men and women, to operate under, and in a jurisdiction that is de-jure, lawful, and with a fiduciary trust, to serve the men and women of our geographical area and no other.
To ensure that the needs of the local men, women, and their property, were the priority and responsibility of the Regional District. So...What Office is held?
Lawfuly/de-jure or unlawfully and de-facto?
We require an answer, on or before __________________ No answer will be considered a tacit agreement.
The office of the Regional District is held by the trust of the members of our community, the neighbours and friends who voted for positions in an office to serve the community. That's why we require proof of what oath, declaration, or covenant was given.
An unalienable right and exercised dominion of The men and women
Autograph____________________:___________________________
All rights reserved.

Loading 7 comments...