The Rule Of Necessity We all start the game the same, recognized as persons before the law. One thing to consider having at the forefront of the mind for a bit is, "I am using this BC/DL/SIN #/Passport/court out of necessity". Webster's, necessity; pressure or circumstance; impossibility of a contrary order or condition: Requirement. If you are using it of necessity than you are not using it by choice or voluntarily. If you say nothing you will be deemed to have presented it or got involved on a voluntary basis. In fact the necessity statement may be applicable with respect to any gov id, even a DL. Fact is there is a necessity aspect. I am reading the Michael Journal's lastest publication and there is a good bit on the fact banks are running the show, even gov't. Last night I wrote that money is like oxygen, a necessity of life and the journal today I read refers to it as the economic lifeblood, and given the present state of affairs it is a necessity. It is not necessary that you pay but money is necessary. He who owns the gold pays the bills. I think that as long as you know why you use a BC of necessity and that the legal name appearing on it is in circulation because of that, which many reasons to justify the necessity aspect have been shared; you can apply the knowledge at any point in any proceeding. No harm in tossing out you do not consent to be recognized by the legal name and that you waive the legal right to recognition everywhere, or with respect to this matter, as a person before the law. As a Sovereign, you can pick and choose when you are or are not recognized as a person before the law. If you are, your choice, you are subject to it as Her Majesty is by consent. There laws indicate when an Act/law is not binding on Her Majesty and in my view is done because Her Majesty is a person like all others and thus recognized before the law unless stated otherwise. In Her case it is on an Act by Act basis. Some yes some no. Even then consent may be given. We Sovereigns have greater flexibility. See, the rule is recognition everywhere as a person before the law which implies you can put limitations on everywhere to say, with respect to this matter, no. Everywhere would also include at all material times. We all start the game the same, recognized as persons before the law, even prior to birth. From then on you decide when you are not by saying no to the legal right. If you buy from me and gave me knowledge that you are not recognized as a person before the law with respect to a particular transaction (all rights reserved could imply legal rights which does nothing for you but say, sue me) I cannot sue you and you cannot sue me. The law cannot see my body or my body through the legal name, but a party (principal) has to perform for legal name, but not you. If you do not make it known to me that you waive the right, you did not and can be sued and so may I be. Of course we are talking a much larger business being the mother of all business (legal entities), being the governments. All of the above is shared and is not conclusions or instructions. Some legal rights waived........... Put that on your paper and anyone with an interest would be advised to ask which ones. Think how you can have fun with that. :-D Private Necessity. A strong wind blows a parachuting skydiver off course from his intended landing zone. He must land in a nearby farmer's field. The skydiver tramples on the farmer's prized roses, and the farmer hits the skydiver on the head with a pitch fork. The skydiver can invoke the privilege of private necessity for trespassing in the farmer's fields but will have to pay for the damage caused to the roses. The farmer will be liable for battery because the use of force in defense of property is not privileged against an individual who successfully claims private necessity. If you were to invoke private necessity with regard to the BC, legal name and bank account, it is like you would not be trespassing into the legal/commercial activity world. It is of necessity that you play. The word private in the statement suggests whatever you are doing have hold or possess is private and not public, thus if driving a car of private necessity the vehicle is not being used for commercial purposes. Anything you do can be of private necessity if you so say it is. Officer, I am not showing you the id you asked for to identify myself, it is of private necessity that I do. Who can so to another what a necessity is. Heck, they have drug clinics where they issue illegal drugs. A castle, transportation device, money, government id, banking are or can be private necessities. It may be that all you need do is make the claim. hahahahaha! Section 39 of the C.C.C. is similar but private necessity seems broader in scope although it may help to say why you are invoking s. 38 or 39 and private necessity may be it. Put it this way, if a claim of private necessity meets the rules then it is. Does he have any choice but to use this BC? No. Then we cannot use it to trespass against him if he claims private necessity. Does he have a choice but to use this BC to get a bank account and is there another way he can pay on contracts other than contracting with a private for profit bank? No. Then our law will not trespass against those who claim private necessity because they have not trespassed of free will into our legal world that is everywhere and all encompassing. We cannot force man to bow to our god, the money god. This man is not party to any debt and is no surety for another. He is private and he uses the tools of our law of necessity and not benefit or privilege. You could also say that the state issues BC's of private necessity. haha! Claim you use of the BC and and and as a private necessity and then the law can invoke it private necessity. Receiving order. I have added to my demand notes, Of "Private Necessity".............. :-D :-D :-D Now tell me it is not issued of necessity....................and let's go at it. Defendant Lake Erie was at the dock of plaintiff Vincent to unload cargo from Reynolds, the steamship owned by the defendant. An unusually violent storm developed. Lake Erie was unable to leave the dock safely and deckhands for the steamship instead tied the Reynolds to the dock, continually changing ropes as they began to wear and break. A sudden fierce wind threw the ship against the dock significantly damaging it. * Issue Is compensation required when there is damage to another's property due to a private necessity? * Decision (Judge O'Brien) Yes. Now if the state trespass against your claim of private necessity it is subject to damages. The ruling in Vincent v. Lake Erie assures private citizens from a public policy stand point that they will be compensated for their loss. Vincent will be compensated for repairs and Lake Erie can rest assured that their ship will not sink. This is not about suing the government but why the banking thing should work if you invoke the private necessity with regard to use of the BC and banking. When you have no choice, it is necessity. Necessity includes Duress and force............... No choice is force and duress................and so by you contracting the legal name of private necessity does not void the contract but you are not bound to it. That should include a bank account contract. Legislation now governs legal name changes. However, the courts have held that the use of a name different from one's legal name is still not illegal, so long as there is no intention to defraud or mislead". I may use my own name, however; legislation prohibits me from banking in my name that is different from a legal name, therefore prohibits me from paying in my own name; therefore, I use the BC, the legal name appearing on it, and banks, of; "Private necessity", no choice. It is force and duress...... And so, by your contracting the legal name of private necessity does not void the contract, because the legal name does exist, but you are not bound to it or to the contract. That should include a bank account contract. Further, I do not consent to be recognized or identified by the 'legal name'. If you were to invoke private necessity with regard to the BC, legal name and bank account, it is like you would not be trespassing into the legal/commercial activity world. It is of necessity that you play. Bank Act 414............"unqualified obligation" The statement of private necessity should invoke the "unqualified obligation". We are not obligated to pay. Another party bears that responsibility. We can as we have volunteer but the private necessity claim voids the concept of volunteerism. Cdn Dictionary of Law 2nd Ed NECESSITAS INDUCIT PRIVILEGIUM QUOAD JURA PRIVATA, necessity introduces privilage with respect to private rights. NECESSITAS NON HABET LEGEM, necessity does not submit to law.......... NECESSITY, the defence of necessity doctrine exists as an excusing defense blah blah because it is properly seen as the result of a morally involuntary decision. Blacks Law 4th Ed, NECESSITAS NON HABET LEGEM; necessity shall be a good excuse in our law, and in every other law. NECESSITAS FACIT LICITUM QUOD ALIAS NON EST LICITUM; necessity makes lawful which otherwise is not lawful. NECESSITY; controlling force, irresistable compulsion; a power or impluse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. NECESSITAS VINCIT LEGEM; LEGUM VINCULA IRRIDET; necessity overcomes the law. The power and force of course is the law. Basically it seems it comes down to, you use the gov id and services voluntarily or of necessity. You decide. * * * Do you have a choice but to use private bank money? Yes. You can issue a demand promissory note of private necessity. Do you have a choice but to present a driver license if asked to do so by a cop? No. You may present the BC of necessity. That is to say, if you do not you will be hassled for having no id and or what point is there in getting a license when the same doctrine of necessity may be applied by you. If you use the BC of necessity then you would do the same with the D license. That may be why lawyers and case law claim a BC is a license. To do what is other wise illegal and it would be illegal if you do not have a D license and do not invoke the necessity aspect upon presentment of the BC in the stead of a license. I wonder if you can apply for a D license of necessity but in the end what is the point if you are presenting the BC of necessity is what I am getting at here? Everyone gets and needs a BC but after that depends perhaps on what you know. Are you using it of necessity or otherwise? If you do not say necessity, I would say otherwise applies, i.e. for personal gain, benefits, privileges. Do you have a choice but to use a BC, the legal name appearing on it, banks, or money? Try going about your way with no gov't id. Try to access banking which is access to money without gov't id. Try to acquire property without gov't id. Try to access any part of the system in your own name that is different from a legal name. You cannot. Your honour I would love to pay that debt associated with the legal name appearing on this BC, but the law won't let me access to banks or money in my own name that is different than the legal name appearing on this BC and the account. I use the BC of private necessity and so I tender this note of private necessity. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/Const/Appendix%20A%20-%20Chap.%20322.htm http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/Const/Appendix%20A%20-%20Chap.%20323.htm http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/Const/Appendix%20A%20-%20Chap.%20327.htm
Per Ritchie, Dickson, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.: The defence of necessity is available in Canada and should be recognized as an excuse operating by virtue of s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code. The essential criteria for the operation of the defence is the moral involuntariness of the wrongful action measured on the basis of society's expectation of appropriate and normal resistance to pressure. The defence only applies in circumstances of imminent risk where the action was taken to avoid a direct and immediate peril. The act in question may only be characterized as involuntary where it was inevitable, unavoidable, and where no reasonable opportunity for an alternative course of action that did not involve a breach of the law was available to the accused. As well the harm inflicted by the violation of the law must be less than the harm the accused sought to avoid. Where it was contemplated or ought to have been contemplated by the accused that his actions would likely give rise to an emergency requiring the breach of the law it may not be open to him to claim his response was involuntary; mere negligence or involvement in criminal or immoral activity when the emergency arose, however, will not disentitle an accused from relying upon the defence. Finally, where sufficient evidence is placed before the Court to raise the issue of necessity the onus falls upon the Crown to meet the defence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's act was voluntary; the accused bears no burden of proof. In this case, the trial judge was correct in instructing the jury upon necessity, however, he erred in his directions to them. Although he adequately charged the jury upon the majority of issues pertinent to the proper test for necessity [page 234] he did not direct their attention to the issue of the availability of a reasonable legal alternative. [we have no legal alternative with regard to id and names] This error goes to the heart of the defence and justifies a new trial. Per Wilson J.: The defence of necessity must be grounded either on excuse or on justification. The only way in which the defence of necessity can be applied as an excuse is where the accused's act is done in the interest of self-preservation.....[Do not present gov id and you may get your face slammed in the ground as some have. Food, shelter also qualify...........] Where necessity is invoked as a justification, the accused must show that he operated under a conflicting legal duty which made his seemingly wrongful act right. Such justification must be premised on a right or duty recognized by law. [we have a right to use our name that is different from a legal name but legislation denies it, and, you have the choice not to be recognized by the legal name but by your own, but to no good end in the legal world] [You go about your way privately in your own name but if there be a matter before a court or that may be taken before a court (contractually related) it will be the legal name that the law sees] All we are wanting is to trade in our own name. That does not mean or suggest one is above the law or not subject to it. Why can one not trade in his own name? What the big deal is? It is fact so then it is of necessity you do it in a name that is different than your name and so can easily claim it is not your name and that you do not hold title (the receipt/proof of legal ownership/SOB) to it. If one is to argue that it is your name then still the questions begs an answer; why then can I not do so by law in my name that is different from a legal name? The law does not obligate me to be recognized by the legal name and if not me WHO? There are a number of case regarding the necessity doctrine and this theme is common throughout; If there is a reasonable legal alternative to disobeying the law, then the decision to disobey becomes a voluntary one. Now we and this name game thing are not disobeying the law, in fact the opposite if the necessity aspect is raised. I am only using this legal name and BC and money your honour because its the law, not because I want to. I want to use my own but legislation prohibits it = necessity/duress/force/coercion. The law/contract void as against the one claiming necessity I want to use my own name but the law will not allow it. So then, I am not here to slay (disobey) the law your honour but to fulfill it. Do you know why the law/contracts charges legal names................?
Because the law will not let people bank in their own name. Bank Act regulations........Access to Banking. What point is there to knowingly contract with one you know cannot pay?
At best you can be a surety on the strawman accounts/contracts; that is to say perform the payment aspect as there is nothing else a surety does. When you are not recognized by the legal name and use the BC of necessity, some other party becomes the surety. That party is the law since it is the law that made it that people cannot pay. It is not the gov't that has everything bound it is the banks.
Free yourself of the need of money from the banker, the result of the claim of necessity, and another party assumes the position of surety, the law. Banking is international jurisdiction, one world order. Free yourself from the banker here is free from the banker everywhere. Internationally free.........
In freeing yourself of the banker is in recognition of the truth of the reality of the legal world, you cannot pay, never could and thus whatever you do in the legal name you are not the beneficiary of any of it in any record, your name is not there, and never were except in your mind. Now who holds the priority claim? Sure you can secure assets legally that are all pledged to the bank already given they are acquired with bank money (a lien) and stop others from taking the assets legally; or you can claim necessity and walk to receive it all back free, and free of the law. The law acts upon those that use money of desire and not necessity. A judge sits on the bank for crying out loud. The whole thing is a court and the court is about money. Everything registered is part of the pledge/collateral registry and delegated to the banks the fund CANADA, the debtor. You cannot secure against that claim only lesser claims.
When you know you are not obligated to be recognized by the legal name and that you cannot pay and that the law commands that contracts are entered into including bank account agreements in the legal name, and that the law commands the form of payment and you can only get it from banks you cannot access in your own name; who the heck else is gonna pay when it is known you cannot and/or is not by law obligated to? There has to be a performer with respect to the payment aspect of the contract. There can only be the law if not you.
What the purpose of the law is, to balance the accounts. Balance the equation. The law has made it that you cannot possibly do so so it must when it knows you won't, because the law made it so, and so it is, and it is good.
I wish to apologize to anyone that assumed my post Crazy was suggesting other processes do not work. I have no doubt there are legal processes and procedures that can be used to effect the desired outcome. My point is, the amount of paperwork and knowledge required. And if anyone thinks he is actually protecting his ass under the law, he is only fooling himself and perpetuating a false reality. There is an underlying truth clouded by the law itself to keep your eyes focused on the law than on love where the greatest remedy to call it that is had..............
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
