Within what we call the free world there is an inherent fear of anything communistic or socialistic. We claim to believe in democracy although nowadays there are those who see democracy as merely a dictatorship in which one has the opportunity to elect the next dictator. Don't agree with this assessment? Consider the following case from 1990.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bold and
underlining added.
The Littlechild Case
Proceedings taken in The Court of Queen’s Bench, Docket #9012000725
Law Courts
10th December 1990
The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall Justice of The Court of Queen’s Bench Alberta
E. Molstad, Esq.
For the Defendant
F. Wall
For the Plaintiffs
Official Court Recorder
THE COURT: Thank you. Well as you suggest and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out – that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild has outlined the law. The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting for government’s goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent their views in his voting for the government’s goods and services tax. It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the benefit of the doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at trial. However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:
“It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interest of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament.”
So, it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election. I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty. They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament. I would be inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well. But I note that they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck out on that account alone. So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is correct. Even if that is all true the Court can’t give you assistance because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation and others that M.P.’s must be given a right to carry out their duties without any worry about being called to account during their term of office. That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice of the act - - which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom. So under the circumstances I am dismissing - - or I am allowing the application to strike but the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.
You want to address costs further Mr. Molstad?
The remainder of the transcript deals with court costs. (snipped)
In the above transcript, the case referred to was “Roman Corporation Limited vs The Hudson Bay Company”; both corporate entities. The reference itself does not refer to a “roman incorporation – roman person”; however, that case referred to the limited liability status of Members of Parliament – showing that Parliament is considered to be a “make-believe ship” – an incorporation in the Roman Empire style, whereby the crew members (of real or imaginary ships) are considered to not be responsible for their own actions, but are totally subservient to the captain and officers of the ship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So this is our democracy folks. We are slaves on the Queens plantation. We get to elect a board of directors that the queen uses to run her corporation. We cannot recall them or hold them to account because they're not working for us as is proven by the oath they take. Members of Parliament swear the following before the Governor General, the Queen's watch person:
“I, ____________, do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”
As an alternative to swearing the oath, Members may make a solemn affirmation, by simply stating:
“I, ____________, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”
The Members of the Legislative Assembly swear the following in front of the Lieutenant Governor, the Queens watch person.
I, _____________, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II [or her successor], her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Now you begin to see why the shares of the Bank of Canada are
held by the Finance Minister,
for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.
But I'm getting sidetracked here so let me repeat the first sentence again.
Within what we call the free world there is an inherent fear of anything communistic or socialistic. We are fed a line that democracy is the best system of government in the world. Preferable to me would be a republic. I once heard the difference between a democracy and a republic this way. In a democracy if two wolves and a sheep went to dinner and voted on what was for dinner the sheep would be in trouble. But in a republic if two wolves and a sheep went to dinner and voted on what was for dinner, the wolves would be obligated to protect the rights of the sheep. Our neighbours to the south started as a republic and I don't recall any notice that changed that. But we never hear that word these days. We hear instead members of the Senate and Congress as well as The President repeatedly using the term "democracy". One of the best descriptions of a republic I have hear came from the movie,
The Alamo with John Wayne playing Davy Crockett. Click this link to watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epkwz7YM40A.
But this isn't an article on the pros and cons of democracy vs a republic. It's an article on what appears to be a fear of freedom. We act like little children afraid to step out the front door of our home without the companionship and advice of our parents. The latest example of this for me is my exposure to the Mathematically Perfected Economy as formulated and presented by Mike Montagne. Upon hearing Mike's presentation I was instantly taken by how simple and freeing Mathematically Perfected Economy is. But when relating it to others some dismissed it entirely without the slightest study as socialism. But if those who say that would spend one day of their life to learn the truth of it they would soon realize that it offers them the freedom Davy Crockett spoke of.
The major difference between a republic and a socialistic form of government is that with socialism people become like small children needing to be looked after. The state takes on great importance because it fulfils that need. The state, in order to ensure its own existence continually teaches the population that the state is most important. The state makes the rules, supplies all the people's needs and has the best interest of the people at heart. Under socialism the state and the state alone in sovereign.
Under a republic the people are sovereign. That's why Davy Crockett was able to say,
"Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means that people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober however they choose." With this choice come great responsibility. People are responsible for not only their own welfare but they also have the responsibility to guard the rights of their neighbour. People are free to live however they choose so long as they harm no one, as long as they break no one's property and as long as they committed no fraud in their contracts. I have talked recently of promises to pay. These are contracts and are backed by only one thing; our word.
Look around and ask yourself which of these two more resembles our society today. For me the only honest answer is that there is already a great resemblance to socialism. and the closer we get to a state where our politicians, governmental officials and police are feared rather than respected the closer we get to communism. In communist countries I have heard that one of the scariest experiences for the people was when the police came into view. I'm old enough to remember that there was a time when it wasn't like that in Canada. But those times are going swiftly.
And now take a look at a money system that places the responsibility for your word where it belongs; with you. Then ask yourself how something that frees you from a private banker and buts the control that the banker exercised over you squarely on your own shoulders be socialistic?
When people say that Mathematically Perfected Economy is socialistic they are completely mistaken. Mathematically will present you with all the responsibilities of a republic. No more will the government be sovereign as it is today. No longer will our politicians be accountable to the Queen or King. Governments will once again be accountable to the true sovereigns, the people. I implore you to at least spend some time examining not only mathematically perfected economy but also to take an honest look at who really exercises control today and how little say you the sovereign have over that. The servants have taken control of the castle and the real Queens and Kings bow to them. Something is wrong with this picture. The next move is yours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments to the author are welcomed.
